May I ask where you are getting these stellar locations from?
You're indicating that your map is based off the Real-Life Positions of Stars, but I'm seeing stars that aren't where they supposed to be. I'm seeing may star systems in wrong locations. Procyon, Vega, several of the Rosses.
I applaud you for your very hard work, but there is so many errors with real star locations. Also your work suggests that Geoffery Mandel was wrong with his Star Trek Star Charts, who spent years studying Star Trek canon and maping real life stars. Whom Cryptic based their Star Maps off.
So I take this to mean that you think Star Charts shows correct locations? Because if that is so, you are gravely mistaken. Star Charts forces star locations to fit canon, I have done the reverse and forced canon to fit star locations. And while I am not claiming 100% accurate locations, each location is within at least a light year of where it should be.
I'd like to know where you think Vega and Procyon should be.
Vega's data is: 18h 36m +38 at a distance of 25 LY
that data is taken and crunched in an angle and hypotenuse algorithm that spits out the top down 2D map location for that data in accordance with the orientations of that place with all the "Vulcan Sector" stars within the "Vulcan Sector" (asides from Wolf 359 which simply could not be made to fit and still produce an equal split between four quadrants)...it also produces a couple other outputs so that if 3D maps are ever needed it can be easily adjusted to a couple possibilities of that
but lets go ahead and check this all out, just in case I'm wrong, so starting from the "bottom" of the sector I've labeled as "Tellar Sector"
You see how those hours/minutes consistently go down? that's because we are progressing around the celestial equator...so Vega is absolutely oriented according to "real life" -- you see? And each and every star is plotted the exact same way using the same calculations.
now your next question is going to be why isn't it 25 squares (LY) away from Sol...thats because a calculation is done which produces the hypotenuse of the triangle that stars z-position is in relation to sol and eliminates the "distance" the star travels "up towards" or "down away" from your eye as you look at the 2D representation (i.e., "flattens" the map)...which is why I took the trouble to concurrently calculate a couple different z-axis solutions for the future...there is simply no way in the 2D method presented with STO's sector maps to show the proper distance relationship, so the compromise is made to surrender that z-axis portion (for now, if STO ever goes to using a 3D map method I'm ready.)
Once again, the orientation proceeds around the celestial equator as it should and all the players are orientated in relation to Sol as they should be. (note the same order on Star Charts is Sirius, Procyon, 40 Eridani...and is thus, wrong. For that matter, Star Chart's P'Jem location doesn't even make sense given canon, because in canon it is suppose to be closer to Procyon than Vulcan...which it is in real life also.)
So, hopefully you'll see that I've established the bonafides of Procyon and Vega's locations, both in orientation and distance.
Moving on to the next thing:
As you can see with the "voyages" information provided, I've been fairly exhaustive in establishing the the range of possible travel time per day within the various shows own consistency envelopes using known points. After that (as explained) it is a fairly simple operation to order the episodes according to their given chronology and produce how far such-and-such could have traveled if they made their "minimum" or "maximum" average rates and see where that puts you.
In plotting unknown points you simply work "out" from the known points along this "voyage timeline"
As I've said before, this is a process of reconciliation between Star Charts (which are both non-canon and not necessarily accurate representation of "real" space) -- and STO's own maps which only *loosely* follow Star Charts, and that was for want of taking the time to make their own maps during development.
It makes no reference to what you allude to. The use of the term "expanse" had nothing to do with the areas between the spiral arms -- merely one denoting a large area of space.
As for the last emotional appeal towards Star Charts and my supposed impugning of Geoffrey Mandel's honor in relation to that...as I've said already, this is a reconciliation and Star Charts is just one set of data which is being reconciled to "real life" -- the work on Star Charts is great, and it informs a lot of what goes on in this work I'm doing...but as I've also said already: Star Charts surrenders real star positions to the dictates of canon -- and I suspect there is no day by day and episode to episode, season to season travel time analysis like I've done here within that work.
My primary source is Memory Alpha, I sit down and read every bit of info available on locations mentioned in an episode as I go through the voyage list, including the notations about Star Charts and other sources and do my best to locate something that meets all the reasonable matching conditions. It's not a willy-nilly operation where I say, "oh TRIBBLE it, how about just put this right here and call it good?"
If Memory Alpha calls out Alpha Whatsits bayer designation, then that's the first place we look to see if that actual Bayer designation exists and is reasonably located along the voyage route...if it calls out for a an "F class" star then we'll look for an F-class around the rough 5 LY area where this episode took place...if there's no F, we check for a G-class...if it calls out for a giant-class star, we find that...if its an orange giant, we find that if it works out.
I also use Star Charts as a source...I'll check between the sector I'm working on and the Star Charts area and then look up the stars Star Charts puts in that area in Memory Alpha and cross check to the voyage routes, etc, etc.
Have you considered trying to map the Beta Ursae block like this? Because right now I have 53 Arietis within 38 minutes at warp nine-plus of the Malon System. (Granted, according to the TNG Technical Manual speeds increase exponentially at warp factors above 9...)
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Have you considered trying to map the Beta Ursae block like this? Because right now I have 53 Arietis within 38 minutes at warp nine-plus of the Malon System. (Granted, according to the TNG Technical Manual speeds increase exponentially at warp factors above 9...)
I haven't published the detailed maps yet, but the named systems of the work completed to date have been plotted on the overall map:
53 Arietis
Spec B2V
RAh 03, RAm 07, Dec +17, Dist 800 LY
-65 X, -797 Y
But as I've said before, stories (like Trek canon) can do all kinds of things with distances and realities...so if 53 Arietis is your goal, then use it
As far as overall progress, I'm out to about the 80 LY radius more or less...but the primary dataset I have dies out around 100 LY...and due to technical reasons, dim M-class stars are harder to find past that point apparently so some of the detail will die out as I progress further than 100 LY from Sol (at least for those dim red stars)
to address questions of sources, I take the stellar data from two astronomical databases:
basically the overall listing of stars within 100 LY of all types I took from Sol Station's listings and then looked *each one up* in the SIMBAD database, eliminating duplicates and selecting the shortest, easiest to reference name for each star (stars often have several catalog identifications, I wanted to make sure the easiest to look up reference id was shown for each star so people could look up a star for themselves in a stellar database...like SIMBAD...for their own research, edification, etc.)
I can continue detail mapping past 100 LY, but that'll mean making custom searches on some astronomy dbs which are not really oriented towards providing info in the convenient fashion sol station is organized.
I have data on some stars past 100 LY because I've also sourced the constellations wiki list of stars (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Orion) ... however within 100 LY the other two primary sources take precedence.
So I take this to mean that you think Star Charts shows correct locations? Because if that is so, you are gravely mistaken. Star Charts forces star locations to fit canon, I have done the reverse and forced canon to fit star locations. And while I am not claiming 100% accurate locations, each location is within at least a light year of where it should be.
I talked to Geoffrey Mandel personally and he told me he used real star locations when making the Star Trek Star charts. And best to my knowledge, there were no real life stars moved to fit canon, since there was no real life stars shown in the various Star Trek Charts seen on screen.
I'd like to know where you think Vega and Procyon should be.
Vega's data is: 18h 36m +38 at a distance of 25 LY
that data is taken and crunched in an angle and hypotenuse algorithm that spits out the top down 2D map location for that data in accordance with the orientations of that place with all the "Vulcan Sector" stars within the "Vulcan Sector" (asides from Wolf 359 which simply could not be made to fit and still produce an equal split between four quadrants)...it also produces a couple other outputs so that if 3D maps are ever needed it can be easily adjusted to a couple possibilities of that
but lets go ahead and check this all out, just in case I'm wrong, so starting from the "bottom" of the sector I've labeled as "Tellar Sector"
You see how those hours/minutes consistently go down? that's because we are progressing around the celestial equator...so Vega is absolutely oriented according to "real life" -- you see? And each and every star is plotted the exact same way using the same calculations.
now your next question is going to be why isn't it 25 squares (LY) away from Sol...thats because a calculation is done which produces the hypotenuse of the triangle that stars z-position is in relation to sol and eliminates the "distance" the star travels "up towards" or "down away" from your eye as you look at the 2D representation (i.e., "flattens" the map)...which is why I took the trouble to concurrently calculate a couple different z-axis solutions for the future...there is simply no way in the 2D method presented with STO's sector maps to show the proper distance relationship, so the compromise is made to surrender that z-axis portion (for now, if STO ever goes to using a 3D map method I'm ready.)
Once again, the orientation proceeds around the celestial equator as it should and all the players are orientated in relation to Sol as they should be. (note the same order on Star Charts is Sirius, Procyon, 40 Eridani...and is thus, wrong. For that matter, Star Chart's P'Jem location doesn't even make sense given canon, because in canon it is suppose to be closer to Procyon than Vulcan...which it is in real life also.)
So, hopefully you'll see that I've established the bonafides of Procyon and Vega's locations, both in orientation and distance.
Not going to dispute the coordinates since they are correct (since you can find it online, like on Wiki), but what is your math? You using proper Polar to Rectangular conversion tables?
Why I'm asking this is there are people on the internet of various astronomical backgrounds (from professional to amateur) who mapped out Real Life star locations. Many plotting the real stars within 50 Light Years and I'm seeing differences between your maps.
So who is correct?
May I ask what is your astronomical background?
Moving on to the next thing:
As you can see with the "voyages" information provided, I've been fairly exhaustive in establishing the the range of possible travel time per day within the various shows own consistency envelopes using known points. After that (as explained) it is a fairly simple operation to order the episodes according to their given chronology and produce how far such-and-such could have traveled if they made their "minimum" or "maximum" average rates and see where that puts you.
In plotting unknown points you simply work "out" from the known points along this "voyage timeline"
As I've said before, this is a process of reconciliation between Star Charts (which are both non-canon and not necessarily accurate representation of "real" space) -- and STO's own maps which only *loosely* follow Star Charts, and that was for want of taking the time to make their own maps during development.
The basic reasoning is sound, finding a true location and use that as a reference point. And calculating possible distance traveled via the stardates.
But the thing is, how do you calculate the direction the Enterprise Traveled? When I look at your map, I make the assumption that you just arbitrarily sending the Enterprise to the Galactic Southwest. Or are going "okay, I got X days to the next location at Y Speed" and choose star that happens to fit that possible radius?
And what of unknowns like "speed of plot", possible changes in warp speed, and even unlisted stops that could have occurred?
(BTW, you also factoring in the star types? I know it's not often but what if you have a yellow sun and the only star at that location was a red dwarf?)
It makes no reference to what you allude to. The use of the term "expanse" had nothing to do with the areas between the spiral arms -- merely one denoting a large area of space.
Given your defensive response, I have to assume you just happen to arbitrarily put down the Expanse's location.
My evidence is sound, that the edge of the expanse was canonically stated to be 50 light years from Earth, and it canonically stated they traveled months to get through the expanse. Which fits precisely with the edge of the Orion spiral arm to the Carina spiral arm.
Which also fits Star Trek canon, why they explored towards the Galactic Core, and we never had episodes going in that direction. Which is why we never saw any other canonical races in the Expanse, and vice versa why we haven't seen Xindi in other Star Trek productions.
But it's your map, so do as you wish.
As for the last emotional appeal towards Star Charts and my supposed impugning of Geoffrey Mandel's honor in relation to that...as I've said already, this is a reconciliation and Star Charts is just one set of data which is being reconciled to "real life" -- the work on Star Charts is great, and it informs a lot of what goes on in this work I'm doing...but as I've also said already: Star Charts surrenders real star positions to the dictates of canon -- and I suspect there is no day by day and episode to episode, season to season travel time analysis like I've done here within that work.
I humbly disagree.
My primary source is Memory Alpha, I sit down and read every bit of info available on locations mentioned in an episode as I go through the voyage list, including the notations about Star Charts and other sources and do my best to locate something that meets all the reasonable matching conditions. It's not a willy-nilly operation where I say, "oh TRIBBLE it, how about just put this right here and call it good?"
If Memory Alpha calls out Alpha Whatsits bayer designation, then that's the first place we look to see if that actual Bayer designation exists and is reasonably located along the voyage route...if it calls out for a an "F class" star then we'll look for an F-class around the rough 5 LY area where this episode took place...if there's no F, we check for a G-class...if it calls out for a giant-class star, we find that...if its an orange giant, we find that if it works out.
I also use Star Charts as a source...I'll check between the sector I'm working on and the Star Charts area and then look up the stars Star Charts puts in that area in Memory Alpha and cross check to the voyage routes, etc, etc.
Wait, you're getting all your Star Trek information from Memory Alpha and not researching the episodes?
No offense, but that seems like an injustice of research.
I talked to Geoffrey Mandel personally and he told me he used real star locations when making the Star Trek Star charts. And best to my knowledge, there were no real life stars moved to fit canon, since there was no real life stars shown in the various Star Trek Charts seen on screen.
There were no real life stars? Gamma Hydra isn't a real life star? *shrugs* ok. I mean, did you just give him a ring and ask? Or maybe you mis-remember what was said...because he obviously used lots of *real stars* on the map, but they often do not appear where they should...especially southern hemisphere stars for some reason.
Not going to dispute the coordinates since they are correct (since you can find it online, like on Wiki), but what is your math? You using proper Polar to Rectangular conversion tables?
Why I'm asking this is there are people on the internet of various astronomical backgrounds (from professional to amateur) who mapped out Real Life star locations. Many plotting the real stars within 50 Light Years and I'm seeing differences between your maps.
So who is correct?
May I ask what is your astronomical background?
Show me examples of the maps in question, links, etc. I've already laid out a ton of info here and at the blog site for you and you've provided nothing other than opinion so far.
The basic reasoning is sound, finding a true location and use that as a reference point. And calculating possible distance traveled via the stardates.
But the thing is, how do you calculate the direction the Enterprise Traveled?
If you are referencing Enterprise, I did the whole series at once so there were multiple fixed points to work from with which to "fill out" the missing points *and* the general heading needed to meet those points together, only occasionally were there "loose points" and with those there is some assumed unlisted stops (large gaps in time), if some reasonable unlisted stops can be inferred (sometimes these are mentioned in passing as places the ship has visited but not on screen.)
And what of unknowns like "speed of plot", possible changes in warp speed, and even unlisted stops that could have occurred?
This is all explained on the blog, it is the reason there is a range of distance possible. Also partially answered above.
(BTW, you also factoring in the star types? I know it's not often but what if you have a yellow sun and the only star at that location was a red dwarf?) I've already answered this in an above post.
Given your defensive response, I have to assume you just happen to arbitrarily put down the Expanse's location.
There was nothing defensive about it, once again I referenced everything available...there was nothing that dictated the location of the expanse and once again, the usage of "expanse" was certainly not in reference to an existing feature...otherwise the usage would've continued after "the delphic expanse" effect had been removed.
Also, if you wish to reference the canon -- the Enterprise *did not* "get through" the expanse...the entire "xindi arc" took place *within* the expanse with few exceptions. They traveled more slowly through this area of space because of the anomalies, which is why the minimum distance is pretty much used the whole time for those stops. You're underlying assumption about where the Enterprise was at and doing is flawed...unless you'd like to present some hard evidence to the contrary that the Enterprise only *transited* the Expanse to get to Xindi space.
The only hard "clue" is the reference to Delphic...but the problem with that is that orienting the Delphic Expanse along the 21h-ish line with a 50 LY from Sol edge would create more canonical problems (no mention of it in DS9, Cardassian history, Bajoran history, Ferengi history, etc.) and it would have been a dominant presence for those races...you can't orient it around to the right hand because there is the First Federation...so the most logical thing to do was go to the left hand orientation.
Now maybe if there was a 3D representation there would be more room to work with, but there isn't and this is what we have to work with.
Which also fits Star Trek canon, why they explored towards the Galactic Core, and we never had episodes going in that direction. Which is why we never saw any other canonical races in the Expanse, and vice versa why we haven't seen Xindi in other Star Trek productions.
It's also a part of STO I'll remind you...there are Xindi diplomatic duty officer missions available in certain sector blocks. STO has canonized Xindi race proximity...and as I've stated a number of times already, this is a reconciliation of STO to "RL" also.
However, since you bring up a point of inferred logic -- the absence of a race from previous productions (where those races had not been invented) can just as easily be explained through more mundane circumstances. There are plenty of "one episode" races which simply "drop off the radar"...the Sheliak for one example. Space is a big place and not every race makes the choice to be around and in our face all the time...after all, what were the Trill doing all that time before DS9?
Wait, you're getting all your Star Trek information from Memory Alpha and not researching the episodes?
No offense, but that seems like an injustice of research.
I've already stated on the blog that I re-watched the ENTIRETY OF ENTERPRISE so as to not miss anything...and used Memory Alpha (which is a pretty good source since it often has production details absent in the episodes themselves)
Right now I'm working on TNG and I'm re-watching certain episodes I don't already know by heart or where I think there are details I need to know better.
I'm curious, what sources would you have me go to? I will gladly go to them if they can provide more handily in depth information than Memory Alpha. Is there some secret data source only you and a secret cabal have access to? Because it floors me that you think Memory Alpha's information is not anywhere near a sufficient starting point.
I'd love to hear/read GM's feelings on this matter.
I rather doubt he would be as incisive as some would seem to like to believe.
Both projects are an exceptional quality product of their time.
I have several copies of the Star Charts, bought when they first became available.
(one set is mounted in 'reversible' frames and is hanging on my living-room walls.)
Too bad most publishers wouldn't touch something like this now-a-days.
Having a 'coffee-table' version of your efforts would be fabulous.
:cool:
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I'd love to hear/read GM's feelings on this matter.
I rather doubt he would be as incisive as some would seem to like to believe.
Both projects are an exceptional quality product of their time.
I have several copies of the Star Charts, bought when they first became available.
(one set is mounted in 'reversible' frames and is hanging on my living-room walls.)
Too bad most publishers wouldn't touch something like this now-a-days.
Having a 'coffee-table' version of your efforts would be fabulous.
:cool:
Actually I saw there are a new set of maps coming out (either already or soon)
This is a *very* quick and dirty I did showing how the orientation works on someone else's map.
The stars are in the same rough positions as my calculations produced independently...there is certainly room for myself to make mistakes and there is rounding occurring which can also put things a bit off here and there...*but* in the overall things are oriented and in the appropriate spots.
Hopefully this'll put that to rest.
Now, asking "why the goofy orientation" would be valid if a person didn't take the time to read anything else explanatory...but as you can see from the linked image, the orientation of the primaries (Vulcan, Andor, etc.) within the Vulcan sector block determined the projection used on the overall map.
Now see, just to prove the point that mistakes can be made...I just noticed that I typed a "20" instead of a "23" for Gliese 896/EQ Peg because of azurianstar bringing things up.
53 Arietis
Spec B2V
RAh 03, RAm 07, Dec +17, Dist 800 LY
-65 X, -797 Y
But as I've said before, stories (like Trek canon) can do all kinds of things with distances and realities...so if 53 Arietis is your goal, then use it
Well, thing is, I like consistency (I even went so far as to calculate the distances and times for a warp microjump so they'd follow the TNG warp factor equation), and that turned out to be way the heck off the bottom of the map. However, checking the map, I found the Dreon System, which has an canonical Bajoran colony in it I can use for the mission.
This is really a cool resource.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Well, thing is, I like consistency (I even went so far as to calculate the distances and times for a warp microjump so they'd follow the TNG warp factor equation), and that turned out to be way the heck off the bottom of the map. However, checking the map, I found the Dreon System, which has an canonical Bajoran colony in it I can use for the mission.
This is a *very* quick and dirty I did showing how the orientation works on someone else's map.
The stars are in the same rough positions as my calculations produced independently...there is certainly room for myself to make mistakes and there is rounding occurring which can also put things a bit off here and there...*but* in the overall things are oriented and in the appropriate spots.
Hopefully this'll put that to rest.
Now, asking "why the goofy orientation" would be valid if a person didn't take the time to read anything else explanatory...but as you can see from the linked image, the orientation of the primaries (Vulcan, Andor, etc.) within the Vulcan sector block determined the projection used on the overall map.
Actually I wasn't referencing other fan maps of Star Trek, I was referencing those with real life star locations. Just a simple Google search and you will find dozens of the
As for that "goofy orientation", my guess is that person isn't using the Galactic Center as "true north" and instead basing it off the Ascension 0 orientation.
There were no real life stars? Gamma Hydra isn't a real life star? *shrugs* ok. I mean, did you just give him a ring and ask? Or maybe you mis-remember what was said...because he obviously used lots of *real stars* on the map, but they often do not appear where they should...especially southern hemisphere stars for some reason.
Not sure to take you seriously given this condensating response. Especially when your snide remark took it that I said there were no real stars in Star Trek, when you was responding to my statement that Mandel didn't move real stars to fit Star Trek canon.
Show me examples of the maps in question, links, etc. I've already laid out a ton of info here and at the blog site for you and you've provided nothing other than opinion so far.
Just Google it Sir.
BTW, you never answered my question about your astronomical background. Are you professional? Amateur? Or just a fan researching online?
If you are referencing Enterprise, I did the whole series at once so there were multiple fixed points to work from with which to "fill out" the missing points *and* the general heading needed to meet those points together, only occasionally were there "loose points" and with those there is some assumed unlisted stops (large gaps in time), if some reasonable unlisted stops can be inferred (sometimes these are mentioned in passing as places the ship has visited but not on screen.)
So you guessed.
There was nothing defensive about it, once again I referenced everything available...there was nothing that dictated the location of the expanse and once again, the usage of "expanse" was certainly not in reference to an existing feature...otherwise the usage would've continued after "the delphic expanse" effect had been removed.
Also, if you wish to reference the canon -- the Enterprise *did not* "get through" the expanse...the entire "xindi arc" took place *within* the expanse with few exceptions. They traveled more slowly through this area of space because of the anomalies, which is why the minimum distance is pretty much used the whole time for those stops. You're underlying assumption about where the Enterprise was at and doing is flawed...unless you'd like to present some hard evidence to the contrary that the Enterprise only *transited* the Expanse to get to Xindi space.
The only hard "clue" is the reference to Delphic...but the problem with that is that orienting the Delphic Expanse along the 21h-ish line with a 50 LY from Sol edge would create more canonical problems (no mention of it in DS9, Cardassian history, Bajoran history, Ferengi history, etc.) and it would have been a dominant presence for those races...you can't orient it around to the right hand because there is the First Federation...so the most logical thing to do was go to the left hand orientation.
Now maybe if there was a 3D representation there would be more room to work with, but there isn't and this is what we have to work with.
Oh and how is my reasoning "flawed"?
Please, show me where you get that "clue" from in the Real World, or which Episode of Enterprise gave that understanding that it's along the 21h line? Because that direction happens to be where the Sheliak are.
That's why I suggested the Xindi being Galactic North of the Federation, because it explains why there was no canon races in the Expanse, and why the Xindi don't show up post Enterprise. And it nicely coincides with the end of the Orion Spiral arm at 50 Light years away with it being 2000 light years wide, which so happens to match up with what the Delphic Expanse was.
It's also a part of STO I'll remind you...there are Xindi diplomatic duty officer missions available in certain sector blocks. STO has canonized Xindi race proximity...and as I've stated a number of times already, this is a reconciliation of STO to "RL" also.
However, since you bring up a point of inferred logic -- the absence of a race from previous productions (where those races had not been invented) can just as easily be explained through more mundane circumstances. There are plenty of "one episode" races which simply "drop off the radar"...the Sheliak for one example. Space is a big place and not every race makes the choice to be around and in our face all the time...after all, what were the Trill doing all that time before DS9?
A Fallacy Argument. Especially since I can also get Diplomatic Missions not only to Xindi, but to Ocampa and Tellaxia in Sirius, Regulus, and I believe Alpha Centauri as well.
Using that as evidence, makes me lose trust in the research. For you are bending faux canon with canon to justify the argument.
I've already stated on the blog that I re-watched the ENTIRETY OF ENTERPRISE so as to not miss anything...and used Memory Alpha (which is a pretty good source since it often has production details absent in the episodes themselves)
Right now I'm working on TNG and I'm re-watching certain episodes I don't already know by heart or where I think there are details I need to know better.
I'm curious, what sources would you have me go to? I will gladly go to them if they can provide more handily in depth information than Memory Alpha. Is there some secret data source only you and a secret cabal have access to? Because it floors me that you think Memory Alpha's information is not anywhere near a sufficient starting point.
Memory Alpha only states what was said or shown in canon, it doesn't reveal everything.
For instance, did you read the scripts? Did you interview people like Okuda or Drexler?
I'm sorry you feel offended in questioning your work, but if you are going to advertise on these forums on how accurate your work is, you got to really show the work. Prove to me Mandel was wrong.
Azurian, dude.... you should lay off.... you're going into crazy debater mode again....
MA has a lot of data in it that does in fact come from interviews with people like Drexler and Okuda, and production notes from DVD commentaries, etc....
Frankly, Azurian, I've already gone to great lengths for you...up to and including taking the time to *SHOW YOU* how the orientation and the star positions work...yet you insist on not seeing the truth...I've already *PROVEN MANDEL WAS WRONG SEVERAL TIMES*
However, it's obvious you are not actually *reading this thread* but merely looking for an internet fight to troll.
So Congrats, you "win" -- I get it: you are the one and only source for Trek Canon, what you believe to be true is the only truth. Done deal, you've got my vote, you can move on from the thread now or add something constructive....otherwise I'll be asking for a moderator to help you along.
Azurian, dude.... you should lay off.... you're going into crazy debater mode again....
MA has a lot of data in it that does in fact come from interviews with people like Drexler and Okuda, and production notes from DVD commentaries, etc....
Sorry, dude. I'm asking him legitimate scientific questions regarding his star maps and his deductive reasoning in his map design. If he's going to claim Mr. Mandel is wrong, then he has to do more than just watch TV and get notes off Memory Alpha, he's really got to go through tons of notes to prove the details, like Mr. Mandel did.
Frankly, Azurian, I've already gone to great lengths for you...up to and including taking the time to *SHOW YOU* how the orientation and the star positions work...yet you insist on not seeing the truth...I've already *PROVEN MANDEL WAS WRONG SEVERAL TIMES*
However, it's obvious you are not actually *reading this thread* but merely looking for an internet fight to troll.
So Congrats, you "win" -- I get it: you are the one and only source for Trek Canon, what you believe to be true is the only truth. Done deal, you've got my vote, you can move on from the thread now or add something constructive....otherwise I'll be asking for a moderator to help you along.
Sir, you are slandering Mr. Mandel's work and saying it's wrong. And claiming in your response you answered that, but I am honestly not seeing it. Where is the list of systems and locations that he got wrong? And why are they wrong?
With the Trek systems locations, you demonstrated in using the Stardates and Warp Speeds in your calculations, which is fine since distance and time are legitimate methods of mapping. But you admitted to guessing where those locations were, because they looked good. And just putting something down because it looked good, well aren't you doing what Mandel did, by your initial claim?
While you don't want to reveal your educational or professional backgrounds, I will reveal mine. I do have a degree in Space Studies and Mathematics, and have been working on my own Real Star Map for sometime now, just not for Star Trek. So I apologize for stepping on your toes, but all I want to see is justification of your work. If you feel your map is legitimate, then by all means take it to CBS and get approval to have it published and prove me wrong. But please don't go telling people your map is right and others are wrong, especially when one is a published work that's acknowledged among millions of Star Trek fans, by Cryptic, and by CBS (it was even used in the Wrath of Khan remastered DVD).
Dude, really? If you feel so passionately about it how about you give us the evidence to support your conclusions instead of simply saying Malize is wrong?
the same data for real star locations plotted on the overall map taken from the individual sector maps using the same metrics as above (each line using the same color 2h/RAh and 20 LY increments):
As you can see, the "RL STO Star Positions" map shows consistently accurate orientation and distances, which the Star Charts maps do not. End of story.
When constructing an RPG map, it must be accessible to everyone, not just those who also happen to own RECONS and would know that something was wrong with the orientation/distance of object "abc" or would not critically think as to why something which should be in one direction is instead in another.
Now there can be valid reasons for this depending on orientation of the projection, etc. *HOWEVER* if you do that (as Star Charts may have done) then something explaining those orientation relationships must be provided. But more than likely its more a result of forcing real-life to fit canon.
I've reported, you decide...but to most reasonable human beings this should lay the matter of "real life" accuracy to rest.
That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned Azurian.
I've laid out independently verifiable proof to support myself, you've provided nothing but big net-talk and impassioned defense of Mr. Mandel without any critical thinking behind it -- plus a *whole lot* of *false* assumptions about my process...up to and including if I researched star charts such as RECONS, et al. -- mostly because *you don't listen because you don't care* what that process is, you've already decided there is only one possible source of all things, namely yourself.
As far as canon, I'm curious what more in depth source of canon Mr. Azurian would use than "watching some tv" and referring to Memory Alpha. Mr. Mandel may have had to amass a ton of research and notes...but keep in mind he didn't have the same resources at the time...so yeah, shocker there.
Otherwise you can basically put a sock in your sanctimonious, holy-than-thou POV on canon interpretation...because you are not the arbiter of canon.
Anyway...this is it, the last time I am directly addressing any matter you care to bring up on this subject.
I'm curious have you been annotating vertical elevation? One thing that always puzzled me about the star charts books, and something that made me immediately realize that it wasn't a real map, is the lack of elevation. Annotating Galactic North/South, East/West makes perfect sense, but a real star map would also have elevation above/below the Galactic plane.
This is something that I've heard brought up many times as a way to justify having two systems that LOOK close together on a 2-d map but actually are several LY apart.
I'm curious have you been annotating vertical elevation? One thing that always puzzled me about the star charts books, and something that made me immediately realize that it wasn't a real map, is the lack of elevation. Annotating Galactic North/South, East/West makes perfect sense, but a real star map would also have elevation above/below the Galactic plane.
This is something that I've heard brought up many times as a way to justify having two systems that LOOK close together on a 2-d map but actually are several LY apart.
I've been including the z-axis in the Gazetter listings...and I've been thinking on ways to rework the map with a method to give a quick shorthand so that people could see there is a z-separation, I've been thinking of re-doing the "real" names in colors which indicate a rough absolute z-plane position...or something like that, in like 5 or 10 LY increments -- then folks would know a rough offset amount.
Of course the problem is (if you were really anal about it) you'd want to have a chart which would show you the 3D point a-b distance, which I've seen the like before in star mapping.
On the map where there are two overlapping systems I mark the z's on the map, but as I've gone along I've found that you can nudge the two stars around within their distance margin of errors*and come up with distinct x,y coordinates, so I'll probably go back through the already published maps, etc. and do that too.
* many, if not most, stars have a +/- margin of error in their calculated distances (quick example here -- not a real example: arcturus with a +/- 0.3 LY...if there was an overlapping system it'd be safe enough to "nudge" Arcturus up to a half LY up or down and see if that produces an unique coordinate from the overlap, and thus a "cleaner" 2D map without having to sacrifice "realism"
Malize, one question... have you ever heared of Celestia?
As far as I know, this program is quite mod-able, i made a moviescript (that it follows different planets, do certain rotations, etc. based on realtime planet positions). Wouldn't it be possible to add these starlocations in here as well?
That's quite the paradox, how could you nerf nerf when the nerf is nerfed. But how would the nerf be nerfed when the nerf is nerfed? This allows the nerf not to be nerfed since the nerf is nerfed? But if the nerf isn't nerfed, it could still nerf nerfs. But as soon as the nerf is nerfed, the nerf power is lost. So paradoxally it the nerf nerf lost its nerf, while it's still nerfed, which cannot be because the nerf was unable to nerf.
Thanks for the link to the maps coming in December.
I will certainly be picking those up.
My take on the scurfuffel above is that perhaps we should let the person who actually created the published Star Trek Maps, speak for himself,
IF he chooses to do so...
Instead of using second-hand knowledge, for a debate about the relationship between a work of fiction and actual facts.
If Mr. Mandel wishes to de-bunk the OP's efforts, let us let HIM do it...,
... instead of trying to act as a mouth-piece for Him.
I'm almost positive that He would appreciate that as well.
:cool:
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I've been including the z-axis in the Gazetter listings...and I've been thinking on ways to rework the map with a method to give a quick shorthand so that people could see there is a z-separation, I've been thinking of re-doing the "real" names in colors which indicate a rough absolute z-plane position...or something like that, in like 5 or 10 LY increments -- then folks would know a rough offset amount.
Of course the problem is (if you were really anal about it) you'd want to have a chart which would show you the 3D point a-b distance, which I've seen the like before in star mapping.
On the map where there are two overlapping systems I mark the z's on the map, but as I've gone along I've found that you can nudge the two stars around within their distance margin of errors*and come up with distinct x,y coordinates, so I'll probably go back through the already published maps, etc. and do that too.
* many, if not most, stars have a +/- margin of error in their calculated distances (quick example here -- not a real example: arcturus with a +/- 0.3 LY...if there was an overlapping system it'd be safe enough to "nudge" Arcturus up to a half LY up or down and see if that produces an unique coordinate from the overlap, and thus a "cleaner" 2D map without having to sacrifice "realism"
I like the color coding for elevation idea. Topographical maps do it.
Malize, one question... have you ever heared of Celestia?
As far as I know, this program is quite mod-able, i made a moviescript (that it follows different planets, do certain rotations, etc. based on realtime planet positions). Wouldn't it be possible to add these starlocations in here as well?
Cool, I'm playing with that now. Wondering if there is a way to tag the stars so the names will show up when you're looking at another star
Dude, really? If you feel so passionately about it how about you give us the evidence to support your conclusions instead of simply saying Malize is wrong?
the same data for real star locations plotted on the overall map taken from the individual sector maps using the same metrics as above (each line using the same color 2h/RAh and 20 LY increments):
Come on man, all you did was compare Mandel's map to your's. Show me a comparision between real, existing star maps and either Mandels' map (to prove your case he is wrong) or comparing yours (who you claim is correct).
I've laid out independently verifiable proof to support myself, you've provided nothing but big net-talk and impassioned defense of Mr. Mandel without any critical thinking behind it -- plus a *whole lot* of *false* assumptions about my process...up to and including if I researched star charts such as RECONS, et al. -- mostly because *you don't listen because you don't care* what that process is, you've already decided there is only one possible source of all things, namely yourself.
As far as canon, I'm curious what more in depth source of canon Mr. Azurian would use than "watching some tv" and referring to Memory Alpha. Mr. Mandel may have had to amass a ton of research and notes...but keep in mind he didn't have the same resources at the time...so yeah, shocker there.
Otherwise you can basically put a sock in your sanctimonious, holy-than-thou POV on canon interpretation...because you are not the arbiter of canon.
Anyway...this is it, the last time I am directly addressing any matter you care to bring up on this subject.
No you have not shown any proof, all you are going is "here's may map, my map is right and you are wrong". I have requested you to look at the other star maps available online, for free, that anyone can go look and compare it to your maps.
And I already told you what "more in depth source of canon", I told you go talk to Okuda about the LCARs, go talk to Drexler with behind-the-scenes, go look at the scripts that give detail that wasn't even mentioned on screen. You ever taken a look at the TOS Scripts? The stuff you learn from them really give insight into Star Trek.
As for being "arbiter of canon", the same can be said about you, sir. You can't go saying "this is the path of the Enterprise" without conclusive evidence to back it up. They don't give you an idea of direction they were going or where they were, all you got is Stardates and Warp Factors (which I wonder if you even used the old Warp Scale).
I'm curious have you been annotating vertical elevation? One thing that always puzzled me about the star charts books, and something that made me immediately realize that it wasn't a real map, is the lack of elevation. Annotating Galactic North/South, East/West makes perfect sense, but a real star map would also have elevation above/below the Galactic plane.
This is something that I've heard brought up many times as a way to justify having two systems that LOOK close together on a 2-d map but actually are several LY apart.
Some Maps do. But you only really see elevation in the 2 1/2 maps.
I'm afraid the accusations of being incorrect may in fact be true.
realmalize, I do believe I read that you accounted for the difference in the angle of the galactic plane when mapping out the stars location, am I correct? But did you also account for stellar drift? Remember stars are not stationary and are constantly on the move at a rate of hundreds or even thousands of km/s around the galactic plane. So what you see from Earth is not their true location. The farther the star, the greater the stellar drift. For an example, Betelgeuse is 641 light years from Earth, so you have to account for 641 years worth of stellar movement, plus another 396 years worth of movement between modern time and Star Trek of 2409. Which means those worlds you plotted for the NX and TOS Enterprises cannot be accurate.
I also have to question the path that you stated they traveled, since there was no landmarks stated that could give accurate plotting of where they actually went. Since this science fiction, there is just too many maybes to accurately claim that was where they went.
One last thing, a word of advice. You should be a bit more accepting of criticism no matter how challenging or harsh it is. If you get upset at the littlest of challenge, it might throw doubts on your work and people will not accept it. Even if the criticism is valid, as is it is in this thread. And lets not forget about forum moderators who could close the thread and prevent you from promoting the project ever again if they find things getting out of hand or harsh language being used. So do stay calm and collected and even ignore the supporters, some of them can make a situation worse.
the issue with this is that you didn't say much about why those were better.
And I already told you what "more in depth source of canon", I told you go talk to Okuda about the LCARs, go talk to Drexler with behind-the-scenes, go look at the scripts that give detail that wasn't even mentioned on screen. You ever taken a look at the TOS Scripts? The stuff you learn from them really give insight into Star Trek.
And how do you expect him to do THAT? Hmm?
And BTW, what does this has anything to do with the Foundry?
It's a resource that could potentially be useful to foundry authors.
With all due respect, I fail to see how a heated argument about star charts -- or even a detailed discussion about their accuracy -- has anything to do with the Foundry.
This is being positioned as a resource for Foundry authors. I'm fine with that. Foundry authors are free to use it, or not, and other resources can be presented.
At the end of the day, this is only a story-telling resource. It has no impact on STO's sector maps, which is the reality that Foundry authors must deal with.
If people would like to take the discussion about star map accuracy offline, I would be happy to facilitate that. PM me. But this is not the place.
If the OP is lobbying to have Cryptic change their maps to match his, well, that discussion doesn't belong in the Foundry forum either.
~Bluegeek
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I also have to question the path that you stated they traveled, since there was no landmarks stated that could give accurate plotting of where they actually went. Since this science fiction, there is just too many maybes to accurately claim that was where they went.
given that Trek doesn't happen thousands of years into the future and that the accuracy of the map is within 1-2 LY depending on the given stars range of distance discrepancy -- drift is basically a non-issue.
Here's the deal on the voyages plotted so far:
TOS/TAS & ENT all had relatively short runs compared to TNG & DS9...less than 100 episodes each.
I laid out the entire run of those series respectively...each episode... and sorted them by date (as it says in the blog)
you see that the episodes are organized by canon date (cdate)...you see that Episode 1 "Broken Bow" has three stops (A,B,C...Earth, Rigel, Qo'nos)
You see that the canon date for them to be at Rigel is given...that is a fixed point and time.
Going down the list you see #6 "Andorian Incident" which occurs at another known fixed point and time.
Given the estimated "average cruise time min/max" we can arrive at a rough range of travel...this travel does not have to be in a straight line, point to point. We can assume a certain amount of dithering is occurring, especially if the distance is closer to the min than the max...but what we do know is that they have to get from point A to point B between two dates.
(edit: the "min cruise" distance *assumes* a certain amount of "dithering" or "other mission" is going on, but of the more mundane nature...this number is arrived at by intervals of time where there is no imperative travel occurring, but instead the canon indicates a "routine" schedule of travel....the "max cruise" is more direct estimated travel rate...they are both based of actual time used in the intervals than any direct reference to warp factors or whatnot...at the end of the day, the time all ends up being linear as presented in canon and thus is treated in a linear fashion.)
So we start with fixed points, fixed dates and start trying to figure out what portion of the intervening episodes occupy which portion of the intervening travel time...the same for travel times within an episode that are not specified with a fixed date, amount of time, or other reference (i.e., "4 days/hours,etc. from xyz" or "two light years from xyz" or some such)
The multiple stops of Episode 27 "Carbon Creek" did not actually occur in that episode, in fact it was a "story flashback" episode...but Enterprise was in space.
However what we do know from the fixed points is that the Enterprise had to be traveling between Risa on 2/18/2152 and Romulan space by Episode 28 "Minefield" taking place sometime proximately after 4/12/2152 ("Carbon Creek" fixed date)
We also know that by Episode 38 "Dawn" the Enterprise had traveled (off screen) to a number of locations via Cdr. Tucker's admissions...in the period prior to Episode 38, the most time-logical space for this off screen dithering was in that Episode 26/27/28 area where the ship would presumably be visiting Earth colonies and making exploratory/diplomatic stops (as was their business) until such time they happened upon the fortified Romulan outpost...with this assumption in hand you can look along that general path and arrive at possible points that would've filled that time...in this case I figured that they would possibly visit the Borothans, the Earth Outpost at Deneva, Argelius, Matalas Prime, and Etheenia...prior to the after-supper story "Carbon Creek"...there is still ample unaccounted for time between the last space location of "Carbon Creek" and "Minefield" to allow for some more aimless exploration before they stumble upon the minefield)
Basically, it's all about accounting for their time using a rough radius of operations which the canon itself establishes for that era...which seems to be the most logical way to approach the issue of where ship xyz was roughly in or about a certain non-fixed in space time frame.
By being able to look at the whole range of episodes for a series and then "fill in the blanks" from the fixed/date/times using as many clues given from the episodes themselves...which is really the only hard source of data...you whittle away at what is not known with what you do know.
Please note that locations on that link with parans are non-canon, merely the suppositions of the logical of this methodology.
just noticed I cross posted Bluegeek, sorry about that.
This is only a resource for Foundry authors, nothing more or less. It is given freely to all to use or not use as they see fit and is not a petition to replace or direct future development maps, but as kinds of authors themselves the devs are (of course) free to utilize them as they see fit (or not) also.
I won't feed anymore into the whole "debate" from my end.
I've found the charts to be quite useful. My Foundry mission "The Sins of the Fathers" used these charts to:
Set the overall time span for the mission, which involves a trip from Qo'noS to Triskelion;
Discover the closest starbase to Scalos (Starbase 6);
Determine a non-canon (but non-contradictory) time period in which the Scalosians could have been rescued by a medical vessel sent from Starbase 6 at high warp. (Old scale)
Thank you so much for providing them. The were extremely helpful for doing my background research.
Comments
So I take this to mean that you think Star Charts shows correct locations? Because if that is so, you are gravely mistaken. Star Charts forces star locations to fit canon, I have done the reverse and forced canon to fit star locations. And while I am not claiming 100% accurate locations, each location is within at least a light year of where it should be.
I'd like to know where you think Vega and Procyon should be.
Vega's data is: 18h 36m +38 at a distance of 25 LY
that data is taken and crunched in an angle and hypotenuse algorithm that spits out the top down 2D map location for that data in accordance with the orientations of that place with all the "Vulcan Sector" stars within the "Vulcan Sector" (asides from Wolf 359 which simply could not be made to fit and still produce an equal split between four quadrants)...it also produces a couple other outputs so that if 3D maps are ever needed it can be easily adjusted to a couple possibilities of that
but lets go ahead and check this all out, just in case I'm wrong, so starting from the "bottom" of the sector I've labeled as "Tellar Sector"
61 Cygni @21h 6m ;; +38 11 LY
Delta Pavonis @20h 8m ;; -66 20 LY
Altair @ 19h 50m ;; +8 17 LY
Gliese 733 @18h 54m ;; -22 20 LY
Vega @18h 36m ;; +38 25 LY
Chi Draconis @ 18h 21m ;; +72 26 LY
70 Ophiuchi @18h 5m ;; +2 17 LY
36 Ophiuchi @17h 15m ;; -26 20 LY
You see how those hours/minutes consistently go down? that's because we are progressing around the celestial equator...so Vega is absolutely oriented according to "real life" -- you see? And each and every star is plotted the exact same way using the same calculations.
now your next question is going to be why isn't it 25 squares (LY) away from Sol...thats because a calculation is done which produces the hypotenuse of the triangle that stars z-position is in relation to sol and eliminates the "distance" the star travels "up towards" or "down away" from your eye as you look at the 2D representation (i.e., "flattens" the map)...which is why I took the trouble to concurrently calculate a couple different z-axis solutions for the future...there is simply no way in the 2D method presented with STO's sector maps to show the proper distance relationship, so the compromise is made to surrender that z-axis portion (for now, if STO ever goes to using a 3D map method I'm ready.)
Procyon:
Wolf 359 10 56 +7
Procyon 7 39 +5
Sirius 6 45 -16
40 Eridani 4 15 -7
Epsilion Eridani 3 32 +9
Once again, the orientation proceeds around the celestial equator as it should and all the players are orientated in relation to Sol as they should be. (note the same order on Star Charts is Sirius, Procyon, 40 Eridani...and is thus, wrong. For that matter, Star Chart's P'Jem location doesn't even make sense given canon, because in canon it is suppose to be closer to Procyon than Vulcan...which it is in real life also.)
So, hopefully you'll see that I've established the bonafides of Procyon and Vega's locations, both in orientation and distance.
Moving on to the next thing:
As you can see with the "voyages" information provided, I've been fairly exhaustive in establishing the the range of possible travel time per day within the various shows own consistency envelopes using known points. After that (as explained) it is a fairly simple operation to order the episodes according to their given chronology and produce how far such-and-such could have traveled if they made their "minimum" or "maximum" average rates and see where that puts you.
In plotting unknown points you simply work "out" from the known points along this "voyage timeline"
As I've said before, this is a process of reconciliation between Star Charts (which are both non-canon and not necessarily accurate representation of "real" space) -- and STO's own maps which only *loosely* follow Star Charts, and that was for want of taking the time to make their own maps during development.
As far as the Delphic Expanse:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Delphic_Expanse
It makes no reference to what you allude to. The use of the term "expanse" had nothing to do with the areas between the spiral arms -- merely one denoting a large area of space.
As for the last emotional appeal towards Star Charts and my supposed impugning of Geoffrey Mandel's honor in relation to that...as I've said already, this is a reconciliation and Star Charts is just one set of data which is being reconciled to "real life" -- the work on Star Charts is great, and it informs a lot of what goes on in this work I'm doing...but as I've also said already: Star Charts surrenders real star positions to the dictates of canon -- and I suspect there is no day by day and episode to episode, season to season travel time analysis like I've done here within that work.
My primary source is Memory Alpha, I sit down and read every bit of info available on locations mentioned in an episode as I go through the voyage list, including the notations about Star Charts and other sources and do my best to locate something that meets all the reasonable matching conditions. It's not a willy-nilly operation where I say, "oh TRIBBLE it, how about just put this right here and call it good?"
If Memory Alpha calls out Alpha Whatsits bayer designation, then that's the first place we look to see if that actual Bayer designation exists and is reasonably located along the voyage route...if it calls out for a an "F class" star then we'll look for an F-class around the rough 5 LY area where this episode took place...if there's no F, we check for a G-class...if it calls out for a giant-class star, we find that...if its an orange giant, we find that if it works out.
I also use Star Charts as a source...I'll check between the sector I'm working on and the Star Charts area and then look up the stars Star Charts puts in that area in Memory Alpha and cross check to the voyage routes, etc, etc.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I haven't published the detailed maps yet, but the named systems of the work completed to date have been plotted on the overall map:
http://malsmaps.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/stomap2x12.jpg
53 Arietis
Spec B2V
RAh 03, RAm 07, Dec +17, Dist 800 LY
-65 X, -797 Y
But as I've said before, stories (like Trek canon) can do all kinds of things with distances and realities...so if 53 Arietis is your goal, then use it
As far as overall progress, I'm out to about the 80 LY radius more or less...but the primary dataset I have dies out around 100 LY...and due to technical reasons, dim M-class stars are harder to find past that point apparently so some of the detail will die out as I progress further than 100 LY from Sol (at least for those dim red stars)
to address questions of sources, I take the stellar data from two astronomical databases:
the primary name & distance listing database is from Sol Station (http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm)
the primary detail (shortest/best id, RAh, RAm, Dec, single, binary, trinary, etc.) database is SIMBAD Astronomical Database (http://simbad.harvard.edu/simbad/)
basically the overall listing of stars within 100 LY of all types I took from Sol Station's listings and then looked *each one up* in the SIMBAD database, eliminating duplicates and selecting the shortest, easiest to reference name for each star (stars often have several catalog identifications, I wanted to make sure the easiest to look up reference id was shown for each star so people could look up a star for themselves in a stellar database...like SIMBAD...for their own research, edification, etc.)
I can continue detail mapping past 100 LY, but that'll mean making custom searches on some astronomy dbs which are not really oriented towards providing info in the convenient fashion sol station is organized.
I have data on some stars past 100 LY because I've also sourced the constellations wiki list of stars (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Orion) ... however within 100 LY the other two primary sources take precedence.
so like with starsword's query about 53 Arietis, you can pull the info up from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Aries to verify
I talked to Geoffrey Mandel personally and he told me he used real star locations when making the Star Trek Star charts. And best to my knowledge, there were no real life stars moved to fit canon, since there was no real life stars shown in the various Star Trek Charts seen on screen.
Not going to dispute the coordinates since they are correct (since you can find it online, like on Wiki), but what is your math? You using proper Polar to Rectangular conversion tables?
Why I'm asking this is there are people on the internet of various astronomical backgrounds (from professional to amateur) who mapped out Real Life star locations. Many plotting the real stars within 50 Light Years and I'm seeing differences between your maps.
So who is correct?
May I ask what is your astronomical background?
The basic reasoning is sound, finding a true location and use that as a reference point. And calculating possible distance traveled via the stardates.
But the thing is, how do you calculate the direction the Enterprise Traveled? When I look at your map, I make the assumption that you just arbitrarily sending the Enterprise to the Galactic Southwest. Or are going "okay, I got X days to the next location at Y Speed" and choose star that happens to fit that possible radius?
And what of unknowns like "speed of plot", possible changes in warp speed, and even unlisted stops that could have occurred?
(BTW, you also factoring in the star types? I know it's not often but what if you have a yellow sun and the only star at that location was a red dwarf?)
Given your defensive response, I have to assume you just happen to arbitrarily put down the Expanse's location.
My evidence is sound, that the edge of the expanse was canonically stated to be 50 light years from Earth, and it canonically stated they traveled months to get through the expanse. Which fits precisely with the edge of the Orion spiral arm to the Carina spiral arm.
Which also fits Star Trek canon, why they explored towards the Galactic Core, and we never had episodes going in that direction. Which is why we never saw any other canonical races in the Expanse, and vice versa why we haven't seen Xindi in other Star Trek productions.
But it's your map, so do as you wish.
I humbly disagree.
Wait, you're getting all your Star Trek information from Memory Alpha and not researching the episodes?
No offense, but that seems like an injustice of research.
Answers above.
I rather doubt he would be as incisive as some would seem to like to believe.
Both projects are an exceptional quality product of their time.
I have several copies of the Star Charts, bought when they first became available.
(one set is mounted in 'reversible' frames and is hanging on my living-room walls.)
Too bad most publishers wouldn't touch something like this now-a-days.
Having a 'coffee-table' version of your efforts would be fabulous.
:cool:
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Actually I saw there are a new set of maps coming out (either already or soon)
http://trekcore.com/blog/2013/06/pre-release-info-on-star-trek-stellar-cartography-deluxe-book/
http://i44.tinypic.com/2wc2lxl.gif
This is a *very* quick and dirty I did showing how the orientation works on someone else's map.
The stars are in the same rough positions as my calculations produced independently...there is certainly room for myself to make mistakes and there is rounding occurring which can also put things a bit off here and there...*but* in the overall things are oriented and in the appropriate spots.
Hopefully this'll put that to rest.
Now, asking "why the goofy orientation" would be valid if a person didn't take the time to read anything else explanatory...but as you can see from the linked image, the orientation of the primaries (Vulcan, Andor, etc.) within the Vulcan sector block determined the projection used on the overall map.
It happens.
This is really a cool resource.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Awesome! Thanks, happy it worked for you!
Fascinating.
Actually I wasn't referencing other fan maps of Star Trek, I was referencing those with real life star locations. Just a simple Google search and you will find dozens of the
As for that "goofy orientation", my guess is that person isn't using the Galactic Center as "true north" and instead basing it off the Ascension 0 orientation.
Not sure to take you seriously given this condensating response. Especially when your snide remark took it that I said there were no real stars in Star Trek, when you was responding to my statement that Mandel didn't move real stars to fit Star Trek canon.
Just Google it Sir.
BTW, you never answered my question about your astronomical background. Are you professional? Amateur? Or just a fan researching online?
So you guessed.
Oh and how is my reasoning "flawed"?
Please, show me where you get that "clue" from in the Real World, or which Episode of Enterprise gave that understanding that it's along the 21h line? Because that direction happens to be where the Sheliak are.
That's why I suggested the Xindi being Galactic North of the Federation, because it explains why there was no canon races in the Expanse, and why the Xindi don't show up post Enterprise. And it nicely coincides with the end of the Orion Spiral arm at 50 Light years away with it being 2000 light years wide, which so happens to match up with what the Delphic Expanse was.
A Fallacy Argument. Especially since I can also get Diplomatic Missions not only to Xindi, but to Ocampa and Tellaxia in Sirius, Regulus, and I believe Alpha Centauri as well.
Using that as evidence, makes me lose trust in the research. For you are bending faux canon with canon to justify the argument.
Memory Alpha only states what was said or shown in canon, it doesn't reveal everything.
For instance, did you read the scripts? Did you interview people like Okuda or Drexler?
I'm sorry you feel offended in questioning your work, but if you are going to advertise on these forums on how accurate your work is, you got to really show the work. Prove to me Mandel was wrong.
MA has a lot of data in it that does in fact come from interviews with people like Drexler and Okuda, and production notes from DVD commentaries, etc....
My character Tsin'xing
However, it's obvious you are not actually *reading this thread* but merely looking for an internet fight to troll.
So Congrats, you "win" -- I get it: you are the one and only source for Trek Canon, what you believe to be true is the only truth. Done deal, you've got my vote, you can move on from the thread now or add something constructive....otherwise I'll be asking for a moderator to help you along.
Sorry, dude. I'm asking him legitimate scientific questions regarding his star maps and his deductive reasoning in his map design. If he's going to claim Mr. Mandel is wrong, then he has to do more than just watch TV and get notes off Memory Alpha, he's really got to go through tons of notes to prove the details, like Mr. Mandel did.
Sir, you are slandering Mr. Mandel's work and saying it's wrong. And claiming in your response you answered that, but I am honestly not seeing it. Where is the list of systems and locations that he got wrong? And why are they wrong?
With the Trek systems locations, you demonstrated in using the Stardates and Warp Speeds in your calculations, which is fine since distance and time are legitimate methods of mapping. But you admitted to guessing where those locations were, because they looked good. And just putting something down because it looked good, well aren't you doing what Mandel did, by your initial claim?
While you don't want to reveal your educational or professional backgrounds, I will reveal mine. I do have a degree in Space Studies and Mathematics, and have been working on my own Real Star Map for sometime now, just not for Star Trek. So I apologize for stepping on your toes, but all I want to see is justification of your work. If you feel your map is legitimate, then by all means take it to CBS and get approval to have it published and prove me wrong. But please don't go telling people your map is right and others are wrong, especially when one is a published work that's acknowledged among millions of Star Trek fans, by Cryptic, and by CBS (it was even used in the Wrath of Khan remastered DVD).
My character Tsin'xing
Star Charts Orientation (each line represents 2h of RAh)
http://i44.tinypic.com/35de1ht.jpg
Star Charts Distances (20 LY color increments)
http://i44.tinypic.com/10h0vis.jpg
the same data for real star locations plotted on the overall map taken from the individual sector maps using the same metrics as above (each line using the same color 2h/RAh and 20 LY increments):
http://i43.tinypic.com/2py8002.jpg
As you can see, the "RL STO Star Positions" map shows consistently accurate orientation and distances, which the Star Charts maps do not. End of story.
When constructing an RPG map, it must be accessible to everyone, not just those who also happen to own RECONS and would know that something was wrong with the orientation/distance of object "abc" or would not critically think as to why something which should be in one direction is instead in another.
Now there can be valid reasons for this depending on orientation of the projection, etc. *HOWEVER* if you do that (as Star Charts may have done) then something explaining those orientation relationships must be provided. But more than likely its more a result of forcing real-life to fit canon.
I've reported, you decide...but to most reasonable human beings this should lay the matter of "real life" accuracy to rest.
That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned Azurian.
I've laid out independently verifiable proof to support myself, you've provided nothing but big net-talk and impassioned defense of Mr. Mandel without any critical thinking behind it -- plus a *whole lot* of *false* assumptions about my process...up to and including if I researched star charts such as RECONS, et al. -- mostly because *you don't listen because you don't care* what that process is, you've already decided there is only one possible source of all things, namely yourself.
As far as canon, I'm curious what more in depth source of canon Mr. Azurian would use than "watching some tv" and referring to Memory Alpha. Mr. Mandel may have had to amass a ton of research and notes...but keep in mind he didn't have the same resources at the time...so yeah, shocker there.
Otherwise you can basically put a sock in your sanctimonious, holy-than-thou POV on canon interpretation...because you are not the arbiter of canon.
Anyway...this is it, the last time I am directly addressing any matter you care to bring up on this subject.
This is something that I've heard brought up many times as a way to justify having two systems that LOOK close together on a 2-d map but actually are several LY apart.
My character Tsin'xing
I've been including the z-axis in the Gazetter listings...and I've been thinking on ways to rework the map with a method to give a quick shorthand so that people could see there is a z-separation, I've been thinking of re-doing the "real" names in colors which indicate a rough absolute z-plane position...or something like that, in like 5 or 10 LY increments -- then folks would know a rough offset amount.
Of course the problem is (if you were really anal about it) you'd want to have a chart which would show you the 3D point a-b distance, which I've seen the like before in star mapping.
On the map where there are two overlapping systems I mark the z's on the map, but as I've gone along I've found that you can nudge the two stars around within their distance margin of errors*and come up with distinct x,y coordinates, so I'll probably go back through the already published maps, etc. and do that too.
* many, if not most, stars have a +/- margin of error in their calculated distances (quick example here -- not a real example: arcturus with a +/- 0.3 LY...if there was an overlapping system it'd be safe enough to "nudge" Arcturus up to a half LY up or down and see if that produces an unique coordinate from the overlap, and thus a "cleaner" 2D map without having to sacrifice "realism"
As far as I know, this program is quite mod-able, i made a moviescript (that it follows different planets, do certain rotations, etc. based on realtime planet positions). Wouldn't it be possible to add these starlocations in here as well?
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
I will certainly be picking those up.
My take on the scurfuffel above is that perhaps we should let the person who actually created the published Star Trek Maps, speak for himself,
IF he chooses to do so...
Instead of using second-hand knowledge, for a debate about the relationship between a work of fiction and actual facts.
If Mr. Mandel wishes to de-bunk the OP's efforts, let us let HIM do it...,
... instead of trying to act as a mouth-piece for Him.
I'm almost positive that He would appreciate that as well.
:cool:
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
My character Tsin'xing
Cool, I'm playing with that now. Wondering if there is a way to tag the stars so the names will show up when you're looking at another star
I did, I pointed out other legitimate Starmaps.
Come on man, all you did was compare Mandel's map to your's. Show me a comparision between real, existing star maps and either Mandels' map (to prove your case he is wrong) or comparing yours (who you claim is correct).
No you have not shown any proof, all you are going is "here's may map, my map is right and you are wrong". I have requested you to look at the other star maps available online, for free, that anyone can go look and compare it to your maps.
I'll give you a simple one: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html
And I already told you what "more in depth source of canon", I told you go talk to Okuda about the LCARs, go talk to Drexler with behind-the-scenes, go look at the scripts that give detail that wasn't even mentioned on screen. You ever taken a look at the TOS Scripts? The stuff you learn from them really give insight into Star Trek.
As for being "arbiter of canon", the same can be said about you, sir. You can't go saying "this is the path of the Enterprise" without conclusive evidence to back it up. They don't give you an idea of direction they were going or where they were, all you got is Stardates and Warp Factors (which I wonder if you even used the old Warp Scale).
Some Maps do. But you only really see elevation in the 2 1/2 maps.
Yes, Mr. Mandel can speak for himself. But the argument for me is about Real's credibility and methodology in the creation of his star map.
And BTW, what does this has anything to do with the Foundry?
realmalize, I do believe I read that you accounted for the difference in the angle of the galactic plane when mapping out the stars location, am I correct? But did you also account for stellar drift? Remember stars are not stationary and are constantly on the move at a rate of hundreds or even thousands of km/s around the galactic plane. So what you see from Earth is not their true location. The farther the star, the greater the stellar drift. For an example, Betelgeuse is 641 light years from Earth, so you have to account for 641 years worth of stellar movement, plus another 396 years worth of movement between modern time and Star Trek of 2409. Which means those worlds you plotted for the NX and TOS Enterprises cannot be accurate.
I also have to question the path that you stated they traveled, since there was no landmarks stated that could give accurate plotting of where they actually went. Since this science fiction, there is just too many maybes to accurately claim that was where they went.
One last thing, a word of advice. You should be a bit more accepting of criticism no matter how challenging or harsh it is. If you get upset at the littlest of challenge, it might throw doubts on your work and people will not accept it. Even if the criticism is valid, as is it is in this thread. And lets not forget about forum moderators who could close the thread and prevent you from promoting the project ever again if they find things getting out of hand or harsh language being used. So do stay calm and collected and even ignore the supporters, some of them can make a situation worse.
@tyraidd: lolwut? sockpuppet much?
And no, stellar drift isn't that relevent.... Why? most stars drift on a course roughly parallel to each other. SOME don't but most do.
My character Tsin'xing
With all due respect, I fail to see how a heated argument about star charts -- or even a detailed discussion about their accuracy -- has anything to do with the Foundry.
This is being positioned as a resource for Foundry authors. I'm fine with that. Foundry authors are free to use it, or not, and other resources can be presented.
At the end of the day, this is only a story-telling resource. It has no impact on STO's sector maps, which is the reality that Foundry authors must deal with.
If people would like to take the discussion about star map accuracy offline, I would be happy to facilitate that. PM me. But this is not the place.
If the OP is lobbying to have Cryptic change their maps to match his, well, that discussion doesn't belong in the Foundry forum either.
~Bluegeek
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
given that Trek doesn't happen thousands of years into the future and that the accuracy of the map is within 1-2 LY depending on the given stars range of distance discrepancy -- drift is basically a non-issue.
Here's the deal on the voyages plotted so far:
TOS/TAS & ENT all had relatively short runs compared to TNG & DS9...less than 100 episodes each.
I laid out the entire run of those series respectively...each episode... and sorted them by date (as it says in the blog)
then each given name stop in that episode was allotted a slot (see: http://malsmaps.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/sto-rl-sector-map-project-locating-the-places-of-enterprise/ -- there is a key)
you see that the episodes are organized by canon date (cdate)...you see that Episode 1 "Broken Bow" has three stops (A,B,C...Earth, Rigel, Qo'nos)
You see that the canon date for them to be at Rigel is given...that is a fixed point and time.
Going down the list you see #6 "Andorian Incident" which occurs at another known fixed point and time.
Given the estimated "average cruise time min/max" we can arrive at a rough range of travel...this travel does not have to be in a straight line, point to point. We can assume a certain amount of dithering is occurring, especially if the distance is closer to the min than the max...but what we do know is that they have to get from point A to point B between two dates.
(edit: the "min cruise" distance *assumes* a certain amount of "dithering" or "other mission" is going on, but of the more mundane nature...this number is arrived at by intervals of time where there is no imperative travel occurring, but instead the canon indicates a "routine" schedule of travel....the "max cruise" is more direct estimated travel rate...they are both based of actual time used in the intervals than any direct reference to warp factors or whatnot...at the end of the day, the time all ends up being linear as presented in canon and thus is treated in a linear fashion.)
So we start with fixed points, fixed dates and start trying to figure out what portion of the intervening episodes occupy which portion of the intervening travel time...the same for travel times within an episode that are not specified with a fixed date, amount of time, or other reference (i.e., "4 days/hours,etc. from xyz" or "two light years from xyz" or some such)
The multiple stops of Episode 27 "Carbon Creek" did not actually occur in that episode, in fact it was a "story flashback" episode...but Enterprise was in space.
However what we do know from the fixed points is that the Enterprise had to be traveling between Risa on 2/18/2152 and Romulan space by Episode 28 "Minefield" taking place sometime proximately after 4/12/2152 ("Carbon Creek" fixed date)
We also know that by Episode 38 "Dawn" the Enterprise had traveled (off screen) to a number of locations via Cdr. Tucker's admissions...in the period prior to Episode 38, the most time-logical space for this off screen dithering was in that Episode 26/27/28 area where the ship would presumably be visiting Earth colonies and making exploratory/diplomatic stops (as was their business) until such time they happened upon the fortified Romulan outpost...with this assumption in hand you can look along that general path and arrive at possible points that would've filled that time...in this case I figured that they would possibly visit the Borothans, the Earth Outpost at Deneva, Argelius, Matalas Prime, and Etheenia...prior to the after-supper story "Carbon Creek"...there is still ample unaccounted for time between the last space location of "Carbon Creek" and "Minefield" to allow for some more aimless exploration before they stumble upon the minefield)
Basically, it's all about accounting for their time using a rough radius of operations which the canon itself establishes for that era...which seems to be the most logical way to approach the issue of where ship xyz was roughly in or about a certain non-fixed in space time frame.
By being able to look at the whole range of episodes for a series and then "fill in the blanks" from the fixed/date/times using as many clues given from the episodes themselves...which is really the only hard source of data...you whittle away at what is not known with what you do know.
Please note that locations on that link with parans are non-canon, merely the suppositions of the logical of this methodology.
This is only a resource for Foundry authors, nothing more or less. It is given freely to all to use or not use as they see fit and is not a petition to replace or direct future development maps, but as kinds of authors themselves the devs are (of course) free to utilize them as they see fit (or not) also.
I won't feed anymore into the whole "debate" from my end.
Thank you so much for providing them. The were extremely helpful for doing my background research.