Quadrants
- Thread starter neozeks
- Start date
Except in the instances in which that's not the case, such as "kellicam" or any other term in which there is not a direct equivalent term within the Federation.
Indeed. But that doesn't remove the fact that all the minutes, kilograms and lightyears have to be conversion-translations.
Perhaps the UT is mindful of nuances: just like nobody would translate the exclamation "a million miles!" into "1,600,000 kilometers!" unless the context made clear it was exactly a million miles (the more proper translation would be "a million kilometers!" or perhaps "1.5 million kilometers!"), the UT might decide not to convert "2000 kellicams" into "995.2 kilometers" even though it readily translates "57.1 kellicams" into "28.4 kilometers".
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps the UT is mindful of nuances: just like nobody would translate the exclamation "a million miles!" into "1,600,000 kilometers!" unless the context made clear it was exactly a million miles (the more proper translation would be "a million kilometers!" or perhaps "1.5 million kilometers!"), the UT might decide not to convert "2000 kellicams" into "995.2 kilometers" even though it readily translates "57.1 kellicams" into "28.4 kilometers".
Timo Saloniemi
The International Dateline only exists because the Earth is a sphere: all longitudes are measured from Greenwich, England. It sits right on the zero line, because that is where the observatory was whose observations were the basis for the Royal Navy's charts.
Sort of like "all roads lead to Rome", where all roads of the Roman Empire were marked with mile markers that showed the distance to Rome. All longitudes on the Earth are measured as east or west of Greenwich.
It does sort of stand to reason that mankind's earliest maps of the galaxy will define everything as spinward or antispinward of Earth, or coreward or rimward of Earth. And if we were dividing the galaxy into 4 parts, ... it does seem kind of natual to use the line from Earth to the center of the galaxy as one axis, with the other being perpendicular to it at the center of the galaxy.
I don't like it, but it does kinda make sense.
...One would actually assume the Vulcans and the Andorians did the same, back when they thought they were the kings of this particularly big hill. So it wouldn't be a big surprise if the founding of the Federation also included the minor detail of deciding on a compromise Prime Meridian that kept all these tightly clustered founding-father cultures happy.
The slight averaging wouldn't show up on any map we have seen on screen, due to scale issues. But Vulcan, being a bit antispinward, might draw the average from Earth towards Beta. So would Andor if we put her at Procyon, like some recent works want to. If we postulate further antispinward founding cultures, we soon find Earth, Vulcan and Andor all sitting safely on the Alpha side of that meridian, and the spinwardmost parts of the Romulan Star Empire actually peeking into the Alpha side, too...
Whatever the definition of the A/B divider, it does seem that in order to get to the area where Romulans, Klingons and Feds come together and perhaps share neutral/disputed space, one has to go to Beta Quadrant - as in ST6, where Sulu makes a big fuss about having to cross the quadrant border from Alpha to Beta in order to reach Khitomer.
The dialogue makes it sound like being on the Alpha side means still being a great distance from all things Klingon or Romulan, as in "we're still in Alpha, let alone anywhere near Khitomer".
Timo Saloniemi
The slight averaging wouldn't show up on any map we have seen on screen, due to scale issues. But Vulcan, being a bit antispinward, might draw the average from Earth towards Beta. So would Andor if we put her at Procyon, like some recent works want to. If we postulate further antispinward founding cultures, we soon find Earth, Vulcan and Andor all sitting safely on the Alpha side of that meridian, and the spinwardmost parts of the Romulan Star Empire actually peeking into the Alpha side, too...
Whatever the definition of the A/B divider, it does seem that in order to get to the area where Romulans, Klingons and Feds come together and perhaps share neutral/disputed space, one has to go to Beta Quadrant - as in ST6, where Sulu makes a big fuss about having to cross the quadrant border from Alpha to Beta in order to reach Khitomer.
The dialogue makes it sound like being on the Alpha side means still being a great distance from all things Klingon or Romulan, as in "we're still in Alpha, let alone anywhere near Khitomer".
Timo Saloniemi
Another important contrast between those quotes is "charted" versus "explored": perhaps we have maps of vast areas we have never visited.
Perhaps, for example, when we became friends with the Klingons they gave us complete maps of the Empire and everything they had explored. Federation people may have never visited much of that territory, but we have maps of it. So a large part of the galaxy may have been charted, but not yet explored.
To be sure, it's a bit difficult to see why 100% of the galaxy wouldn't be charted, in the sense of knowing all the star positions. Simple telescopes would reveal most of the galaxy, especially since starships can easily take those telescopes a few thousand years up, down or to the sides, to peek past obstacles. Perhaps that's what our heroes were doing in TOS "Corbomite Maneuver"?
And Federation probes have traveled across tens of thousands of lightyears, with at least one explicitly described as having reached another quadrant (the titular probe of VOY "Friendship One" reached Delta) and one having charted stars in another quarant (Quadros-1 from DS9 "Emissary" charted parts of Gamma, even though it was never stated the probe actually went to Gamma).
That in mind, perhaps "charting" means doing some detail work, such as identifying how many planets a star system has and so forth. But in "Doomsday Machine" and ST2:TWoK, it's established that Starfleet doesn't know if planets explode in distant star systems unless a starship goes in and looks. So the detail work might call for actual starship visits, too, or at least close flybys.
To my ears, "charting" still sounds more cursory than "exploring", but perhaps it's vice versa in Starfleet parlance?
For another semantic wrangle, perhaps Janeway is merely saying that all the Federation territory (that is, the only relevant part of the Alpha Quadrant) has been explored by her time - whereas in Kirk's time, most of the space within the Federation remained unexplored, as evidenced e.g. by Kirk's pathfinding mission to Pollux in "Who Mourns for Adonais" even though UFP holdings at that time extended to Omicron Ceti and Rigel, ten times farther away.
Timo Saloniemi
And Federation probes have traveled across tens of thousands of lightyears, with at least one explicitly described as having reached another quadrant (the titular probe of VOY "Friendship One" reached Delta) and one having charted stars in another quarant (Quadros-1 from DS9 "Emissary" charted parts of Gamma, even though it was never stated the probe actually went to Gamma).
That in mind, perhaps "charting" means doing some detail work, such as identifying how many planets a star system has and so forth. But in "Doomsday Machine" and ST2:TWoK, it's established that Starfleet doesn't know if planets explode in distant star systems unless a starship goes in and looks. So the detail work might call for actual starship visits, too, or at least close flybys.
To my ears, "charting" still sounds more cursory than "exploring", but perhaps it's vice versa in Starfleet parlance?
For another semantic wrangle, perhaps Janeway is merely saying that all the Federation territory (that is, the only relevant part of the Alpha Quadrant) has been explored by her time - whereas in Kirk's time, most of the space within the Federation remained unexplored, as evidenced e.g. by Kirk's pathfinding mission to Pollux in "Who Mourns for Adonais" even though UFP holdings at that time extended to Omicron Ceti and Rigel, ten times farther away.
Timo Saloniemi
Let's see: Almost all of the ships are named for Earth features or people, according to Zephram Cochrane the speech of 23rd century Starfleet personnel is recognizably English, the Federation Capitol is on Earth .... I think it's been pretty well settled who's the king of that particular hill.
Really, the Federation is remarkably Earth-centric. I have a few theories about why, but that's a conversation best saved for later.
I do think that if the Federation wanted to divide the galaxy into 4 parts, one axis would likely be a plane that intersects both the center of the galaxy and the solar system of the Federation Capitol.
...And never mind the movement of planets or stars, because that's insignificantly small (planets) or slow (stars) compared with the expected lifetime of the Federation. Let alone compared with the expected lifetime of the politicians who would have made that decision!
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Historically a place would be charted long after it was explored, charting in a naval sense would have involved taking very laborious soundings of the depth at specific intervals, to give one example the St. Lawrence river was first explored in 1535 by Jacques Cartier but was first properly charted by James Cook in 1759.
However as you say exploration really feels like it needs the presence of explorers while charting does not and thanks to technical advances should be possible remotely.
On the other hand it would fit with the many pseudo-naval aspects of Star Trek that the antiquated way round is maintained even if it is no longer logical.
The "sailing era" idea that charting would be something painstakingly done after explorers had done a cursory visit is an intriguing one. On the surface, it doesn't appear to hold true any more when one explores/charts obstruction-free outer space with far-seeing instruments. Yet Trek does offer clues that certain types of charting require detailed visits and longterm surveys.
In ST2, not only is it reaffirmed that Starfleet doesn't have realtime data on distant planetary explosions, it is also established that starships may visit a star system based on records that say there's a Class M desert world there, yet may not have authentic knowledge of how many planets there are in that system. Either the records are intriguingly incomplete (despite being detailed in other respects) - or then the standard sensors of a starship aren't capable of automatically establishing even the number of planets in a system, unless the crew pays special attention to the charting task.
Which does make some sense. A ship heading for an interesting Class M world in star system X, attracted by signs of civilization there, may well fail to do any sensing or charting of systems Y and Z on the way there, and may indeed pay little sensor attention to planets a, b, c, d and e in the target system when only f is of mission interest. Sensors do expend energy, sensing takes time and computing and manpower resources, and a cautious skipper might not want to announce his or her presence by carelessly shining sensor energies whichever way.
And yet it is difficult to believe that the Feds in Janeway's time would have "explored" 25% of the galaxy, even in the sense of a few blinders-on sorties to distant locations, with massive volumes of unsurveyed space between the sortie paths. After all, even that would require thousands of UFP ships to make decades-long journeys, yet our TNG heroes treat any prospect of a multi-year sortie with worry and doubt...
Timo Saloniemi
In ST2, not only is it reaffirmed that Starfleet doesn't have realtime data on distant planetary explosions, it is also established that starships may visit a star system based on records that say there's a Class M desert world there, yet may not have authentic knowledge of how many planets there are in that system. Either the records are intriguingly incomplete (despite being detailed in other respects) - or then the standard sensors of a starship aren't capable of automatically establishing even the number of planets in a system, unless the crew pays special attention to the charting task.
Which does make some sense. A ship heading for an interesting Class M world in star system X, attracted by signs of civilization there, may well fail to do any sensing or charting of systems Y and Z on the way there, and may indeed pay little sensor attention to planets a, b, c, d and e in the target system when only f is of mission interest. Sensors do expend energy, sensing takes time and computing and manpower resources, and a cautious skipper might not want to announce his or her presence by carelessly shining sensor energies whichever way.
And yet it is difficult to believe that the Feds in Janeway's time would have "explored" 25% of the galaxy, even in the sense of a few blinders-on sorties to distant locations, with massive volumes of unsurveyed space between the sortie paths. After all, even that would require thousands of UFP ships to make decades-long journeys, yet our TNG heroes treat any prospect of a multi-year sortie with worry and doubt...
Timo Saloniemi
Remember that Wesley was speaking of the entire galaxy when he stated those percentages.
If that 19% is wholly within the AQ, that would mean that 94% of the Quadrant has been explored. I would say that that is not at odds with Janeway saying that "most" of the Alpha Quadrant had been explored.
I think it's most reasonable to assume that that means Humans have knowledge about 94% of the Quadrant, not that they've actually physically explored that much. Most of it could simply be knowledge gained from other species, either others in the UFP, or allies like the Klingons.
I think that makes my case for Earth being in the center of the Quadrant. If everything is measured as either "east or west" of Earth, then it would be best to have it in the middle, not on the outer rim.
Well, at least what we've seen of it is. However, we've only seen a very small portion of it. And, what we've seen mostly deals with humanity's involvement in it.
But Earth is in the middle in the Okudaic setup. It's in the middle of the galaxy, on the central meridian. To one side is Alpha, to another lies Beta - but both are equally "owned" by those egocentric Earthlings, who simply speak of "Betan longitude vs. Alphan longitude" the same way the British would have spoken of "Eastern longitude vs. Western longitude", with Greenwich in the middle (or the French with Paris in the middle, or the Spanish with Madrid in the middle, or any number of other zero meridians used in recent history).
Timo Saloniemi
I still don't think that's practical. We've never seen the quadrants refered to in a lattitude/longitude manner. They've always been refered to as if just saying the name of the quadrant is enough to roughly know where something is relative to the UFP. If you then want to detail it a bit more, say in the AQ, then you could use the 'east/west' designators (so the AQ has a 'eastern' and 'western' half relative to Earth).
But we never hear the "western/eastern Alpha" thing, either. Trek just doesn't give us such astrographical information, except in the broadest and most obscure terms.
Also, the galactic quadrant system would probably have been invented back in the 22nd century already (if not thousands of years earlier, as far as the Vulcans are considered), and adopted by the UFP in 2161. Back then, the players would have had little certainty that their beloved Federation would mostly grow in the direction of Alpha, with growth in the Beta direction blocked by the Klingons and the Romulans and who knows who else. The intended "center meridian" might turn out to be an "edge meridian" despite the intent...
Timo Saloniemi
Also, the galactic quadrant system would probably have been invented back in the 22nd century already (if not thousands of years earlier, as far as the Vulcans are considered), and adopted by the UFP in 2161. Back then, the players would have had little certainty that their beloved Federation would mostly grow in the direction of Alpha, with growth in the Beta direction blocked by the Klingons and the Romulans and who knows who else. The intended "center meridian" might turn out to be an "edge meridian" despite the intent...
Timo Saloniemi
Exactly the point I'm making. It makes more sense for the Alpha Quadrant to have an "eastern" and "western" half compared to Earth, or the Federation Core Systems at the very least. If that means that the Klingon and Romulan Empires are also in the AQ, then so be it. It would explain why they are NEVER referred to as Beta Quadrant Powers. I mean, if they are in fact in the BQ, or mostly so, why are they constantly referred to as AQ Powers.
It's been said that Australia is considered Western because of its culture and that that same principle applies to the Klingons and Romulans, in that on DS9 they share the culture of opposing the Dominion. I think more telling example would be this....
India was a western ally in World War II, and today it shares an extensive cultural, strategic, military, and economic relationship with the West. However, India has never been, and probably never will be, considered a "Western Power." They're a "Eastern Power" that's an ally of the West. Shouldn't the same thing apply to the Klingons and Romulans during the Dominion War? They're Beta Quadrant Powers who happen to be allies of the Alpha Quadrant Power, the UFP.
India was a Western ally in WW2 becuase it was a British colony in WW2. since independence, it's not really been that much of an ally to the west. in fact, India's a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
^ True, but since the collaspe of the Soviet Union, India has been an ally of the West and continues to build a strong relationship with "Western Powers."
I'll admit, it's a rather weak comparison, since they were a British colony and then non-aligned. So, how about Japan? Ever since the beginning of the Cold War, they've been an adament ally of the West. They shared the "culture" of opposing the Soviet Union, but I doubt anybody would argue that that means they have a "western culture."
I'll admit, it's a rather weak comparison, since they were a British colony and then non-aligned. So, how about Japan? Ever since the beginning of the Cold War, they've been an adament ally of the West. They shared the "culture" of opposing the Soviet Union, but I doubt anybody would argue that that means they have a "western culture."
