New star systems mentioned/viewed

[Timo]

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.

This wouldn't work too well: it's akin to DSC having to give up "impulse drive" and adopt whatever NASA decides to fly next year.

Today's science is outdated in Trek anyway, especially when it comes to space stuff. We don't really know anything about outer space that would be relevant to Trek: either it's insufficient (we don't know where the eetees live or how the center or the rim of the galaxy is put together) or incorrect (we mistakenly believe there aren't planets where Trek shows those to exist, and vice versa) or just plain indifferent (so we have now discovered that basically every star has the potential for Class M planets - big deal, we could see that already back in 1966).

Even within the confines of reality, today's method of naming planets is likely to be a mayfly. What we have today is fuzzy guesses from insufficient data; we can't even agree on the definition of "planet". When we are confronted by the complex reality of our universe for real, with better telescopes or stellar flyby probes, we'll need a new naming system again. It probably won't be anything like Trek's, which is based on assumptions of simplicity - but it may end up looking like that anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

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.

I see that as a problem as boumdaries between the Federation and Klingon empire have shifted from DSC to TNG. What to do about those systems not discovered by 2257?

 

[Tuskin38]

What to do about those systems not discovered by 2257?

I just ignore them unless they're referenced in dialogue.

 

[mythme]

And unless the Romulan Neutral Zone changed radically between Discovery and TOS, both Federation space and the Klingon Empire bleed considerably into Romulan space according to the maps in Discovery. There is also the Briar Patch/Katch de'kel Bracht which are still labeled as separate places in the Discovery map, since it was sourced from Star Charts which predates Enterprise's Augment stories which tells us they're the same thing.

As for new systems - I don't think anyone has mentioned Priors World, Harlak, Tonnata VII or Porathia yet - although they are mentioned in the Mirror Universe, they likely also exist in the Prime one as well. Purmata VI was also listed in Captian "Killy's" bio record. Iridin, Kelfour VI, Septra and Nivalla are colonies on the Klingon border.

 

[Timo]

And unless the Romulan Neutral Zone changed radically between Discovery and TOS, both Federation space and the Klingon Empire bleed considerably into Romulan space according to the maps in Discovery.

Unless this is "3D bleed", with the volumes of space creeping along the outer surface of the RNZ shell like lusty amoebas. Showing the Romulans themselves would not be of interest at this time - they are the forgotten folks with no galactic significance.

There is also the Briar Patch/Katch de'kel Bracht which are still labeled as separate places in the Discovery map, since it was sourced from Star Charts which predates Enterprise's Augment stories which tells us they're the same thing.

Except it doesn't. All we learn is that Arik Soong likes to call this location the Briar Patch. Lots of folks give obvious nicknames to places; few of them stick.

There is no true connection between Klach D'kel Brakt and the ST:INS location the Federation likes to call the Briar Patch. The two places do not look the same, after all.

At most, we can argue that both the INS location and the ENT location were places where Klingons had no business being but where Earth starships could and would go if given enough motivation...

As for new systems - I don't think anyone has mentioned Priors World, Harlak, Tonnata VII or Porathia yet - although they are mentioned in the Mirror Universe, they likely also exist in the Prime one as well. Purmata VI was also listed in Captian "Killy's" bio record. Iridin, Kelfour VI, Septra and Nivalla are colonies on the Klingon border.

Very true.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I see that as a problem as boumdaries between the Federation and Klingon empire have shifted from DSC to TNG. What to do about those systems not discovered by 2257?

The set designers probably figured no one would have been able to see every star system on a background map. They should have known better. Yet another creative team underestimates the trekkies attention to minute details.

 

[Timo]

..."Not discovering a star system" sounds pretty unlikely - how could a star remain unseen? Generally, when our Latter Day Heroes discovered a new culture on a new planet, they already had the name of the place down pat when first settling on orbit. Somebody would have seen the place through a telescope, after all, and this somebody probably gave it a name, wholly regardless of what eventually would be found at that location.

Basically, out of the Star Charts copy-paste locations, only Iconia would appear likely to "not have been discovered". That is, nobody would name the star she or he sees as "Iconia" unless already aware that this was the star of the Iconians (or, conversely, if a star were randomly named Iconia, it sure as hell wouldn't be the home to the Iconians!).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tuskin38]

Hopefully they use Stellar Cartogorahy as their map base next season

 

[DEWLine]

With some additional help from these resources, hopefully:

http://galaxymap.org/dr2/
https://zah.uni-heidelberg.de/institutes/ari/gaia/outreach/gaiasky/
http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source= I/347

 

[Ronald Held]

..."Not discovering a star system" sounds pretty unlikely - how could a star remain unseen? Generally, when our Latter Day Heroes discovered a new culture on a new planet, they already had the name of the place down pat when first settling on orbit. Somebody would have seen the place through a telescope, after all, and this somebody probably gave it a name, wholly regardless of what eventually would be found at that location.

Basically, out of the Star Charts copy-paste locations, only Iconia would appear likely to "not have been discovered". That is, nobody would name the star she or he sees as "Iconia" unless already aware that this was the star of the Iconians (or, conversely, if a star were randomly named Iconia, it sure as hell wouldn't be the home to the Iconians!).

Timo Saloniemi

More like charted systems, but unexplored by UPF and added to their territory?
Iconia had a different designation originally.

 

[DEWLine]

"Cancri IV", "Eridani D"...I got the sense that there were supposed to be Bayer names or Flamsteed numbers in front of those planet names, but some proofreader or editor got rid of them somewhen between the scriptwriter's screen and the soundstages.

 

[Timo]

But, as pointed out above, "Eridani d" or "82 G. Eridani d" is a Scientific American reference, a modern name for a planet speculated to exist. With a lowercase d, which just goes to show how idiotic the modern system is when the opportunity for utter confusion arises not just from the most innocent of typos, but must occur every time the names are used verbally rather than textually. But technically correct in itself, even in its truncated form.

In terms of Trek, Eridani D ought to be a star just like 40 Eridani A, and Cancri IV is a planet just like Omega IV. Both also follow the Trek tradition of truncation, where the speaker and the listener both already know exactly which star system in Eridanus or Cancer they are talking about. And there's Trek precedent to star systems only having one planet (of note), so skipping that and going straight to describing the moons is a valid Trek thing.

It's the truncation thing that's extra irritating, giving us uninformative names like "Omega". But such references are split sharply in two: those where the heroes already are homing in on said star system and obviously can start dropping superfluous bits from the name of their destination, and those where a star system is mentioned for the first time and needs to be carefully identified. DSC doesn't yet have examples of the latter, thankfully...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

"Cancri IV", "Eridani D"...I got the sense that there were supposed to be Bayer names or Flamsteed numbers in front of those planet names, but some proofreader or editor got rid of them somewhen between the scriptwriter's screen and the soundstages.

Just sloppy work: use the Flamsteed name or Bayer designation. Not expecting a citation from the Henry Draper or Gliesse catalogues.

 

[DEWLine]

Do they have an astronomy advisor that we know of?

 

[Tim Thomason]

Amanda misspoke. Eridani D is the 500th planet in the (40) Eridani system.

 

[Ronald Held]

I doubt they have a science advisor, or listen to what he/she says.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I doubt they have a science advisor, or listen to what he/she says.

So the same as all other productions.

 

[Tim Thomason]

The Original Series had a science advisor. TNG had science advisors. And Discovery went through a whole sequence of showcasing an "accurate" warp one (light speed) trip down to the correct second they would arrive at their stated distance (a first for Trek).

All series, except for maybe the Kelvin films, make some notable push towards scientific accuracy in some area, even if they fail in others or in the basic premise of their show. Star Trek has never been about complete, wild fantasy space opera.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Original Series had a science advisor. TNG had science advisors. And Discovery went through a whole sequence of showcasing an "accurate" warp one (light speed) trip down to the correct second they would arrive at their stated distance (a first for Trek).

All series, except for maybe the Kelvin films, make some notable push towards scientific accuracy in some area, even if they fail in others or in the basic premise of their show. Star Trek has never been about complete, wild fantasy space opera.

My point is they can (and have) ignore any science advise that interferes with the drama. At the end of the day they want interesting entertainment not a documentary.