The last few days I've been looking over Star Charts, Stellar Cartography and other assorted Trek maps, trying to pin down likely locations for some places from the novels, and I noticed something. On page 65 of Star Charts, just past Klingon space and Relay Station 194 is a system marked "Taurus." I can't really find a reference to which "Taurus" this is supposed to be on either Memory Alpha or Beta, or anywhere else. The "largest" map in the Stellar Cartography set falls just short of showing that area, cutting off right after Relay Station 194, and just before this "Taurus." It's a bit confusing since all the other "Taurus"/"Tauri" locations seem to be in the direction of the Pleiades, and the Taurus Dark Cloud, in the rimward reaches of the Alpha Quadrant. So what system or planet is this deep Beta Quadrant "Taurus" beyond Klingon space supposed to be?
The Taurus system comes from the TOS episode "The Galileo Seven", and the misadventures of that shuttle's crew on its second planet. I can't speak to the choices that led to Geoffrey Mandel and his team choosing that part of Beta Quadrant to site the system. I might only suggest that, given how many space-faring species are out there, a coincidental name-word coming from one of the many non-human spacer species might be in play here. Probably not the Klingons, but perhaps one of their neighbours, free or conquered...?
But it's not the same Taurus system from The Gallieo Seven, which has been identified as Al Nath/Beta Tauri, seen (among other places) on Page 64 of Star Charts, and appropriately near the location of the Murasaki Quasar according to Stellar Cartography. It's a different Taurus system, and that's why I'm wondering.
I'm not at home so I can't check the book, but could it be the star system in "The Lorelei Signal"? Timon
Good call! The location would fit the bill, in allowing Klingons and Romulans to lose ships there, too. But Mandel calling the place "Taurus" is something he could have avoided, because the actual onscreen name for the location of the adventure was "Taurean system", ambiguous if one wants it to be... Timo Saloniemi
That was called "the Taurean system" onscreen and in the novelization, although The Star Trek Concordance interpreted "Taurean" as the possessive of "Taurus" and claimed that "the second planet in the Taurean system" in "Lorelei" was somehow the same planet as Taurus II from "The Galileo Seven," despite that making no sense.
Thanks, folks. It definitely seems like the Taurean system would make the most sense, given all the data. I'd honestly forgotten about it, I haven't seen that particular TAS episode since I was about 8 years old. I'm thinking of starting a new thread, for those of us interested, to puzzle out the locations of places, for whatever reason, not covered by Star Charts and Stellar Cartography. Places like Minos and the Lorenze Cluster, from "The Arsenal of Freedom" which just seems to have slipped Geoff and Larry's minds when working on their projects, or places from the novels, comics, etc. Seems like that thread could go either here or in Trek Literature. Which would be more appropriate?
The thing to keep in mind is that the maps in Star Charts mostly focus on the space immediately around the Federation and its neighbors, whereas the starships in TOS and TNG were supposed to be exploring far beyond the Federation's borders, pushing out the fringes of charted territory. So many of the worlds visited in those shows wouldn't be on the closer-in maps at all, but only on the wider "Known Space" inset in the second foldout of Star Charts, or even farther out than that. And on that scale, there's not really enough room to call out all the dozens of systems visited in those shows.
Of course. I'm not saying there is necessarily going to be a way to pin down everything, nor is there a need to do so. But for me, it's fun to try and figure out where things are, even if only in a likely direction from the Federation core. That being said, there are a number of Federation planets, starbases, etc. not covered by the existing Charts, which are likely closer to the main body of UFP space, and plenty of pre-TOS material that by the time of TNG/DS9 might be in Federation space. It's not like I'm trying to fill in all the blanks between Starbase 185 and System J-25, but figuring out where, say, Arvada III or Damiano or Sector 221-G and the former Thallonian Empire might be on the Charts should be possible and could be a fun exercise for people. It might even turn into a resource for RPGers and writers. I just don't know whether to start the thread in Tech or Lit.
For the Thallonian Empire spaces, past and present, this is where I'd want to get Geoffrey Mandel, Peter David and Kevin Jardine together for a chat.
Watching Jeopardy tonight, a clue reminded views that one of the three stars in Alpha Centauri is called "Rijel Kentarus." Maybe that explains why "Rigel" is a major Federation Colony when the start typically called Rigel, in another constellation, is so far away. That makes sense fro most series, and it puts Rigel in range of the NX-01's first episode, but it still does not explain why Archer did not recognize a name that has been used on Earth for centuries.
The traditional name "Rigel" is derived from Arabic, meaning leg or foot. For example, one Rigel represents the foot of the constellation Orion, but many other constellations have legs/feet. When "Star Charts" came out, there was some confusion over the various Rigels. I put a note on my old "Races of the Federation" webpage that "the Rigel Colonies' star, Beta Rigel, should not be confused with the 'true' Rigel (Beta Orionis A), the seventh planet of which is home to the Kaylar."
One line could have fixed that: "T'Pol, am I right to deduce that if Klingons - who've never heard from Earth up to now - call a particular star 'Rigel', it's not going to be the same star as our Rigel?"
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca8...0.MZjRQt2QGpsJCAv8Q1cY0_XLh75IsV26DSosDXuSlCA Assuming Sol is there center, and the nearest neighbor is the Alpha Centauri (A, B, and Proxima), are the rest of the stars based on real locations or was this just as much a work of fiction as the rest of the star charts and maps? I do know the 3 solid dots (upper left, upper right, bottom center) are starbases and not stars.
One can always find random stars that more or less match those locations with those assumptions. Perhaps not the ones closest to Sol, but there's always a star at every point of the sky anyway... Where does the "three dots are starbases" idea come from? Is it something Mr. Schnaubelt himself said or wrote? Star Charts has all real stars at the correct locations as per knowledge that nowadays is almost two decades out of date. Some Trek locations are associated with the real stars, some are not. The Rigel issue involves both sorts... Timo Saloniemi
Indeed. Where does that notion come from? Certainly not from Franz Joseph's work, on which that design is based.