did DSC mention any new systems with planets, that we did not know about from all of the other series?
New star systems mentioned/viewed
- Thread starter Ronald Held
- Start date
...But the moon implies a planet. Ditto with "the seventh moon of Eridani D" in "Lethe". Although there the omission of a mention of the planet is jarring, while in the Veda case the planet is both of no concern plotwise and also grammatically-contextually irrelevant.
Or are we to think that Eridani D is a planet rather than a star? Or perhaps both?
(The name sounds as if it were the fourth star in the system Somethingsomething Eridani. Are there quaternary systems or bigger in Eridanus?)
Timo Saloniemi
Or are we to think that Eridani D is a planet rather than a star? Or perhaps both?
(The name sounds as if it were the fourth star in the system Somethingsomething Eridani. Are there quaternary systems or bigger in Eridanus?)
Timo Saloniemi
Last edited:
It's an actual planet that we've found about 20 light years from Earth. It's part of that system we found that had planets close enough to their star to support life.
It's not possible for a "moon" to obit the sun directly. It's possible for objects size of moons (or smaller) to orbit a star, but they are then defined as "dwarf planets"
A "moon" by definition orbits a planet, doesn't matter the size. It is entirely possible for a moon to be bigger than a planet in any given star system.
A "moon" by definition orbits a planet, doesn't matter the size. It is entirely possible for a moon to be bigger than a planet in any given star system.
...But of course it is incompatible with Star Trek, where planets are designated by Roman numerals, not (lowercase) letters.
Science really screwed up when adopting the lowercase letters, when about 100% of scifi had used the Romans for a century or so...
Trek has Dytallix B, though. That's the proper name for a planet, a corporately owned one at that. Eridani D (or Eridani d) might be one of those. Even when Eridani A is clearly a star...
Timo Saloniemi
Since real multiple star systems use letters(Caps), designating planets with lowercase letters is not a stretcn
If reality is incompatible for Star Trek and Trek wants to pretend to be our future, they should probably become compatible with reality instead of the other way around.
Reality has been copying Star Trek since 1966
For those Canon/continuity minded. How many star fields(all from Star Charts?) were displayed and do they "count"?
Depends on your definition of canon.
I just go with 'if you can read it, it's canon'
But that does present some problems with the Discovery maps because there are some planets/systems included that were not discovered until later series (I.E. Iconia) because they just copied Star Charts directly, which was set in the 24th century.
And that binary's supposed to be "six light years" from Gamma Hydrae...
That seems to be the sort of thing the GAIA DR 2 databases should be making easier to check on, right?
I remember a couple, not counting from the spore-vision.
Unidentified planet (Qo'noS in the comics)
Corvan II
Cancri IV
Pahvo
I'm not a fan of cartoony-looking rocks with World-of-Warcraft type veins of glowing stuff running through them, as was shown on Cancri IV, plus what the comics said was a district of Qo'noS, but hopefully they will tone that down a bit in future with more time for FX. Radioactive elements might be in visible veins on some planets, but it can look goofy, so hopefully isn't that common. Corvan II's slanted rock formations seem to be several times taller than a colony building (some kind of super hard rock thrown into a formation by tectonics?) Pahvo looks interesting in some shots, sort of like that season one planet in Farscape where they coloured leaves in blue.
Unidentified planet (Qo'noS in the comics)
Corvan II
Cancri IV
Pahvo
I'm not a fan of cartoony-looking rocks with World-of-Warcraft type veins of glowing stuff running through them, as was shown on Cancri IV, plus what the comics said was a district of Qo'noS, but hopefully they will tone that down a bit in future with more time for FX. Radioactive elements might be in visible veins on some planets, but it can look goofy, so hopefully isn't that common. Corvan II's slanted rock formations seem to be several times taller than a colony building (some kind of super hard rock thrown into a formation by tectonics?) Pahvo looks interesting in some shots, sort of like that season one planet in Farscape where they coloured leaves in blue.
Last edited:
Honestly Pahvo looks like a better detailed of some goofy looking planet that TOS would use for an establishing shot of an alien planet. They'd just have some redshirt walk past a tree some teamster spray painted purple before getting killed by something.
@Awesome Possum - I like it personally, but only because it's cost effective.
In Farscape season one, there is a planet where they used post-production or something to alter the leaves to appear blue. I thought at the time it was a very cost-effective method for making a planet look a bit different, as opposed to using an evergreen Canadian forest for tons of planets like in Stargate SG1 or Dark Matter (Australian in Farscape's case). It was nice to see not all plant life is Earth-like chlorophyll based. I was a bit disappointed however that Pahvo's aliens were just energy-wisps, I love me some physical aliens with buildings.
As an aside, a friend of mine claims he wont watch TV sci-fi because he can't get past humanoid aliens. The thought never crosses my mind, having been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I love humanoid cultures more than attempts at non-humanoid aliens sometimes, because it allows an actor to actually make them an acted 'character', with a culture, rather than a set piece like in alien invasion films. The way people accept wooden horses in Shakespeare productions, it's a feature of the genre for me
In Farscape season one, there is a planet where they used post-production or something to alter the leaves to appear blue. I thought at the time it was a very cost-effective method for making a planet look a bit different, as opposed to using an evergreen Canadian forest for tons of planets like in Stargate SG1 or Dark Matter (Australian in Farscape's case). It was nice to see not all plant life is Earth-like chlorophyll based. I was a bit disappointed however that Pahvo's aliens were just energy-wisps, I love me some physical aliens with buildings.
As an aside, a friend of mine claims he wont watch TV sci-fi because he can't get past humanoid aliens. The thought never crosses my mind, having been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I love humanoid cultures more than attempts at non-humanoid aliens sometimes, because it allows an actor to actually make them an acted 'character', with a culture, rather than a set piece like in alien invasion films. The way people accept wooden horses in Shakespeare productions, it's a feature of the genre for me
Last edited:
Farscape was pretty cool when it came to non-humanoid aliens thanks to the Jim Henson Creature Shop getting a blank check to make whatever crazy thing they could think up and build.
I loved Farscape's puppet aliens, but that same friend I mentioned said they couldn't take it seriously; I think their own perceptions were the issue there, as the audience has to maintain a certain level of credulity for some things, like they do when watching a play.
Similar threads
