Location- Location - Location

[SWHouston]

I've really tried, seen lists of Planets, Sectors/Quadrants, looked in Wiki and other Sites and I just can't find it.

I know we're in Sector 001, and 002 must be next to us, but which direction !

Is there some Chart or Diagram, or even Pictures, which show the Sectors/Quadrants in their prospective to one another ?

Have a good Day !
S.W.

 

[The Trekster]

I don't know but I bet it would be wherever Proxima Centauri is. That is the closest star to our own so it might make sense. Unless the sectors are way bigger than that, which may be the case, since P.C. is less than half a light year away...

 

[SpyOne]

Actually, Proxima Centauri is close enough to be within the same sector: a sector is a cube 20 lightyears on a side, and Proxima is just over 4 lightyears away.
If Earth is at the center of sector 001, however, I am pretty sure that there are no other stars inside that sector, just Sol, Alpha Centauri, and Proxima Centauri.

There's no canon indicator of which direction 002 would be in, as far as I know.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know but I bet it would be wherever Proxima Centauri is. That is the closest star to our own so it might make sense. Unless the sectors are way bigger than that, which may be the case, since P.C. is less than half a light year away...

Check your math:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/KathrynTam.shtml

 

[publiusr]

There might be a star that could come closer according to Malove and Matloff' Handbook

DM+ 61 366

 

[The Trekster]

I don't know but I bet it would be wherever Proxima Centauri is. That is the closest star to our own so it might make sense. Unless the sectors are way bigger than that, which may be the case, since P.C. is less than half a light year away...

Check your math:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/KathrynTam.shtml

Sorry, that's what I thought and then I googled so I wouldn't look like an idiot if I was wrong. I guess that failed.

Ooo, just googled again and I see my mistake, .21 light years is the approximate distance from Proxima Centauri to Alpha Centauri.... whooops

 

[Myasishchev]

What the hell kind of name is Zero-Zero-One anyway? Was just plain One taken?

 

[muzzleflash]

3 sets of numbers for 3 axes in space.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think in the Star Trek: Star Charts book it's implied that "Sector 001" may just be a colloquial name for the Earth Sector and that it may have a more official galactic designation like Sector 7612 or something. When someone says "Sector 001," you know they're talking about the Federation home sector.

 

[Timo]

[/quote]3 sets of numbers for 3 axes in space.[/quote]

I sort of doubt that, because we also have sectors with four or five numbers to their IDs. And these numbers don't seem to be grouped in threes; if there's any close spatial relationship between two sectors, it appears to be indicated by them being close together as running numbers.

It's probably a question of significant numbers in a running series. Starts with 000000000001, ends with 999999999999, so that there are enough sectors to cover the entire galaxy, but people tend to abbreviate, to omit zeroes until the number is cut to manageable size. Three- (001) or four-digit (0470) sectors may still retain some of their leading zeroes, but five-digit ones would already look too long if given even one leading zero.

IIRC, the Star Charts had arranged sectors "in the order they were explored", to explain away all possible inconsistencies. Thus, there was no problem with having Earb be in a "lower" corner of 001 and the Centauri stars in 002, even though those two cubes only touched each other at the tips where the respective systems were.

In canon, we don't know that the Centauri stars would be in Sector 002. The lowest Sector Number we know besides 001 is 005 or 5, which is where ST4:The Voyage Home opens. It appears to be next to the (Romulan?) Neutral Zone.... Suggesting said Zone might be less than 20 ly from Earth, or then within a hundred at any rate.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SWHouston]

Gees, I can't hardly believe this !
I thought it was just because I couldn't find it !

But...
I remember hearing Sulu or Data quote a position that they were going to/or at, isn't that good enough to get a fix on where and how to get to another place !?

Couldn't a "map" be established from those type coordinates ? That sounded just like GPS Data ! Or does a third dimension of that mess things up ?

Isn't this the way one would do that, except maybe 999 x 999 x 999 Sq ? (or larger even)

 

[SpyOne]

You are probably remembering this from Datalore:

LAFORGE: And helm control is here, with the ship's heading given in measurements we call degrees. Three hundred and sixty of them in a full circle this way.
LORE: Then you say mark.
LAFORGE: On the nose.
WESLEY: Which separates it from another full three hundred and sixty degree circle this way on a right angle to this one.
LORE: So by ordering a heading so many degrees this way and so many this way, the ship can travel in any direction. All three dimensions.

 

[Timo]

Those sorts of coordinates that are given relative to the ship are more or less worthless in making a map; it's a bit like saying "Ya know, bud, this is a really good spot for catching pike; I'll paint this big arrow on the side of the boat so we can find our way here again"...

The other sort of coordinates, a set of three numbers (say, X, Y and Z, or perhaps two angles and a distance), we virtually never hear about. They are mentioned as existing in the TNG Tech Manual, but no episode or movie seems to use them; every destination is defined in terms of just two angles given relative to the ship, and the third coordinate (distance) is unnecessary and omitted because the heroes'll get there when they get there.

All right, so "We'll Always Have Paris" features one set of figures given in a grouping of three rather than two - theoretically, this could be an absolute spatial definition. But we can't draw much of a map based on just one datapoint. And we can't make heads or tails of that single datapoint anyway. It reads "664.8 by 1323.7 by 4949.9", so clearly it isn't given in degrees, but that's basically all we can say about it. And just moments earlier, another set of figures that was supposed to be a similar coordinate was "66728.9", a single rather than a triple grouping. Although it may only have been a partial coordinate, since Picard rudely shut off the transmission.

So, no useful coordinate data anywhere in Star Trek. Alas...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SWHouston]

Timo, I completely understand what you're saying, and, am not disagreeing with it in any way.

True, you'd need three points of reference, AND, wouldn't you need a fourth....Time.

Remember things are not static and you'd have to calculate just where a component of a system would be, if you wanted to get there, when it was there !

I've been looking at some of the Astronomical Databases.
UKKKK, it's been a LONG time since I've messed with equations like are there.
But, they MUST have a way to do this (understood we can't apply it to Trek info, not enough there to actually do anything).
If some Telescope Guru finds a planet, and wants to tell someone else to look at it, how does he tell another where it's at. Got to be some set of numbers, which ID that/his find.

 

[Gagarin]

Sectors seem a lot more political in places rather than purely geographical/cartographic. 001 may only include Earth and whatever the first 2 or 3 colonies. It might be zig-zaggy. Think Eastern states as compared to Western states (in US).

 

[SWHouston]

Gagarin,
Your points are well made and quite probable.
However, I dwell on the next step...Quadrant.
Which implies this nice regular space, and well defined.
One (me I guess) would hope that regularity would be consistent in all descriptions, but....

Have a good Day !
S.W.

 

[SWHouston]

Has anyone seen, or have a Copy of...
Star Trek Maps

And if it's cannon or not, IF it shows placements ?
I just ran across this, and have no idea if it's even applicable to this Topic.

 

[diankra]

Has anyone seen, or have a Copy of...
Star Trek Maps

And if it's cannon or not, IF it shows placements ?
I just ran across this, and have no idea if it's even applicable to this Topic.

The problem with the maps books is that they're (largely) two-dimensional. Not totally stupid, as the galaxy is a flattish disc (at least around our region), but 'flat' still means thousands of light years from top to bottom, so there's still a hefty 3-d element to the position of star systems.

 

[BK613]

Has anyone seen, or have a Copy of...
Star Trek Maps

And if it's cannon or not, IF it shows placements ?
I just ran across this, and have no idea if it's even applicable to this Topic.

The problem with the maps books is that they're (largely) two-dimensional. Not totally stupid, as the galaxy is a flattish disc (at least around our region), but 'flat' still means thousands of light years from top to bottom, so there's still a hefty 3-d element to the position of star systems.

Well the link that he is trying to go to references a series of maps that recognized that depth. Their sectors and quadrants solution, apparently based on galactic coordinates, is one of the better extrapolations out there, IMO.

 

[SWHouston]

Greetings Tex (BK) and thank you for the Link !

I'm not sure just what you wrote that triggered it, maybe it was your Southern Drawl, but, things started literally "clicking" !

It appears that what I attempted to start here, was a Re-Invention of the Wheel. Not that I'm opposed to doing that, new avenues of research have frequently developed through that level of stubbornness.

But, something you said sorta got things rolling, and it appears that there is a LOT of information out there, on the location of Species, Sectors and Quads.

Ok, I'll admit right off, that this information is NOT Cannon !
Cannon being, if the Script doesn't say it, it's not.

However...
In looking through the various Maps and Charts, I find a preponderance of consistency, in the locations of just about any Planet or Sector that we've "herd" of in Trek.

Here's just a few of the Sites I've visited...
Charts: http://wwwold.ucip.org/science/newmaps/
Stdimension: http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/cartography.htm
Coffee Neb: http://www.coffeenebula.com/gazetteer/layout.php
Digisys: http://www.digisys.net/users/cosmo/maps.htm

My problem is that I'm on DialUp, and some of those charts really look blurry. I'm hoping that most will have a speedier connection, and really enjoy the views.
One thing that was sorta "Pesky" was, encountering the Gaming Websites. I'm not opposed to playing Games like that, but, I was trying to focus on the more "informational" sources, and I suppose if you start looking, you'll have to deal with that.

So...
I suppose my original questions have been answered, but, if anyone runs across any additional nice Charts or Pictures of what this is all about, please post the links here !

Have a good Day !
S.W.