SIze of The Federation in the new series
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
I subscribe with the idea of a small core but with small collections of planets elsewhere.
Makes the most sense. Plus what maps don't take into account is that space is not 2d.
The best programs these days are consistent.
Though its fair enough to be flexible with travel times.
Makes the most sense. Plus what maps don't take into account is that space is not 2d.
Which is a weakness of Trek.
The best programs these days are consistent.
Though its fair enough to be flexible with travel times.
Except for this: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Underspace
Rather like Babylon 5''s hyperspace concept.
Now there was a tech manual for the Wing Commander movie that had FTL using something like a focal line between stars themselves. A focal line IRL can be useful for astronomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(spacecraft)
Maybe warp drive works best with heavy bodies fore and aft. Directly in line. Typical ship warp speeds are calculated for free-space only.
Then too, if space lanes are lined with cosmic strings--that may allow faster transit times.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/interstellar-relativistic-propulsion.280491/#post-11579775
They could be useful
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/esp_ciencia_timetravel34.htm#Cosmic_Strings
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but in regards to the Valiant, if its mission was to circumnavigate the Federation, using 3D space, does that mean they were traveling around the widest part of the Federation, or just a part that would take about three months to circle? "Circumnavigate" would be an outdated term to use in space flight.
No, our solar system is not one light year "in perimeter to the sun" - whatever that means. Light does not take practically a year to traverse one light year.
In a vacuum light takes precisely a year to traverse a light year, that is exactly how a light year is defined, not by any particular dimensions associated with the solar system or any other stellar phenomena.
The problem I have with this thread is that the original poster is engaging in "wishful thinking", and what is being proposed would certainly put constraints on a script. What should matter is story-line and plot, and that it all falls upon the producers of any film or television.
Again, I would urge the reading of the site first hand, since I'm just repeating things from there, but the reasoning of their argument was that in TNG season one (for example), the first 20ish episodes were set out on the frontier - with Encounter at Farpoint being around Deneb - possibly edging their way back toward the Federation - only to arrive back in time for Heart of Glory and The Neutral Zone.
From memory, this doesn't sound too far fetched, because it's not like we know the amount of time that passes between episodes; probably several weeks.
The solution of the Star Trek: Star Charts, if I remember, is different - it dismisses stars like Deneb and Rigel as being something other than their real-life namesake, like a similarly named Epsilon Deneb or Gamma Rigellis or something (I'm just making those names up) - and they are just referred to as Rigel and Deneb in popular parlance by the 24th century.
My only problem with the Charts, which are nice, is that its clearly a bit fannish in places - I really didn't like, for example, how Klingon and Romulan stars have all been named after Klingon and Romulan ship classes and stuff (B'Rel, K'Vort, D'Deridex, Vor'Cha, Negh'Var... ffs) - just because they are the only Romulan and Klingon words that people know off the bat... It's like naming every city in Japan "Samurai 8" and "Godzilla 4", and looks ridiculous (should have just left them blank) - but thats another topic. Also a small Romulan Star Empire and large Klingon Empire is a debatable interpretation of their relative power.
I think that the chart is bit more accurate. The Romulan and Klingon Empires wouldn't be as big as the Federation simply because those empires are managed by ONE race each, whereas the Federation had existing territories competing with each other before banding together to form the Federation. Secondly, it would be easier for the Federation to expand simply because it's easy to allow potential members to join, and certainly getting Federation protection from the other powers would be a deciding factor. You know, strength in numbers?
Constraints, if though out from the start, shouldn't be a problem.
Consider this, Two cops working in Reno announce that they're going to lunch and get in a car, we cut them (and the car) on Miami Beach enjoying some take out, then cut back to them in Reno at the end of their lunch hour ready to return to work.
It wouldn't make sense outside of a comedy.
There's no reason that what goes on inside Star Trek, in terms of time and space and distance, can't make sense. Saying it's just fantasy and "speed of plot" doesn't hide the fact that the production team isn't putting in minimal effort.
Not putting in an effort in today's television results in people looking else where for their entertainment. No, it won't matter to every viewer, but how many viewers can you risk losing?
Each course correct doesn't have to be a lessen in mathematics, But if it takes a day to travel 10 light years this week, then next week it should take 2 days to travel 20.
Centuries ago it could take weeks and months to reach destinations, the Discovery's helmsman says it will take 10 days, then cut to 10 days later, you don't have to show it.
@dswynne1 - I know what you are thinking, however many of the biggest empires in history were managed by one ethnic group - such as the Roman Empire, British Empire or Russian Empire - the last, for example, being almost exclusively managed by Russians (of course, with the usual outsourcing of imperial duties to Cossacks, Georgians, other client groups, etc). Yet they still managed to control a vast territory, even when compared to multi-ethnic states with high economic development such as the USA and European Union. So, although it is commonly accepted that the United Federation of Planets is much larger than the Romulan Empire and Klingon Empire, we don't really know for sure - the Federation definitely seem to be more powerful (or the other two would have attacked), but their relative territorial extent compared with the Klingons/Romulans is speculative. In the Romulan case, since their empire is modeled partly on the Roman system of imperialism, they may be vastly multi-ethnic, with huge auxiliary legions composed of subject races. The Klingons seem to have a semi-feudal, semi-mercantile empire, a bit like the British, so again, may have significant diversity and territory.
The Federation was a union of essentially highly-developed independent homeworlds, each with star flight capabilities - sort of like a bunch of really ancient and economically powerful cites forming a union - London, Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Moscow - each with impressive technological and scientific credentials. Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar all had independent spaceflight capabilities, and while none were a match for the Klingon Empire's vast fleets individually - they were already powerful as small states, and together in a union they were probably like a concentrated lump of technical and economic power, like the EEA. If you look at say the Russian Federation, it's essentially a modern form of a sparse empire that was conquered out of various tribes and kingdoms in the 16th-19th centuries - it is more vast than the EU or USA in territory - but less economically developed since it wasn't a union of equals - the conquered subjects were tribes and kingdoms of Siberia and Central Asia. If I was to speculate for fun - maybe in ENT, the Federation forms as a small, highly-concentrated union (like the unification of Germany in the 1800s) - maybe in TOS the Federation and Klingon Empires were not too different in territory (like the USA vs Soviet Union) - but maybe by DS9 the Federation had become far larger.
You can see why the existence of this new union would be a major problems for the Romulans and Klingons. It raises the question of why their subjects would remain loyal in face of the Federation's liberal policies, and no doubt this is one of the biggest sources of tension provoking the Federation-Klingon Cold War of TOS - Federation power, self-determination and democracy threatening the ancient status quo in both empires. Dissidents would question why they must give resources to the Klingons, when they could be equal partners in the Federation. But probably their empires are smart enough to employ a wide variety of techniques, both forceful and intellectually appealing, to their subjects, to keep them in line - hence why they don't just collapse under massive rebellion immediately. In the Romulan case, being apparently semi-democratic, they may employ the tried and true Roman tactic of appealing to national security to keep citizens ideologically motivated - they may offer a conservative moral and political order that appeals to many worlds - or benefits the elites of these worlds enough that they supress dissent on behalf of the Romulan state - many may actually find it preferable to the Federation, depending on their values. The Klingons may offer an ideological justification to their subjects too, as well as simply putting down rebellions with force.
The Federation was a union of essentially highly-developed independent homeworlds, each with star flight capabilities - sort of like a bunch of really ancient and economically powerful cites forming a union - London, Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Moscow - each with impressive technological and scientific credentials. Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar all had independent spaceflight capabilities, and while none were a match for the Klingon Empire's vast fleets individually - they were already powerful as small states, and together in a union they were probably like a concentrated lump of technical and economic power, like the EEA. If you look at say the Russian Federation, it's essentially a modern form of a sparse empire that was conquered out of various tribes and kingdoms in the 16th-19th centuries - it is more vast than the EU or USA in territory - but less economically developed since it wasn't a union of equals - the conquered subjects were tribes and kingdoms of Siberia and Central Asia. If I was to speculate for fun - maybe in ENT, the Federation forms as a small, highly-concentrated union (like the unification of Germany in the 1800s) - maybe in TOS the Federation and Klingon Empires were not too different in territory (like the USA vs Soviet Union) - but maybe by DS9 the Federation had become far larger.
You can see why the existence of this new union would be a major problems for the Romulans and Klingons. It raises the question of why their subjects would remain loyal in face of the Federation's liberal policies, and no doubt this is one of the biggest sources of tension provoking the Federation-Klingon Cold War of TOS - Federation power, self-determination and democracy threatening the ancient status quo in both empires. Dissidents would question why they must give resources to the Klingons, when they could be equal partners in the Federation. But probably their empires are smart enough to employ a wide variety of techniques, both forceful and intellectually appealing, to their subjects, to keep them in line - hence why they don't just collapse under massive rebellion immediately. In the Romulan case, being apparently semi-democratic, they may employ the tried and true Roman tactic of appealing to national security to keep citizens ideologically motivated - they may offer a conservative moral and political order that appeals to many worlds - or benefits the elites of these worlds enough that they supress dissent on behalf of the Romulan state - many may actually find it preferable to the Federation, depending on their values. The Klingons may offer an ideological justification to their subjects too, as well as simply putting down rebellions with force.
Last edited:
@dswynne1 - I know what you are thinking, however many of the biggest empires in history were managed by one ethnic group - such as the Roman Empire, British Empire or Russian Empire - the last, for example, being almost exclusively managed by Russians (of course, with the usual outsourcing of imperial duties to Cossacks, Georgians, other client groups, etc). Yet they still managed to control a vast territory, even when compared to multi-ethnic states with high economic development such as the USA and European Union. So, although it is commonly accepted that the United Federation of Planets is much larger than the Romulan Empire and Klingon Empire, we don't really know for sure - the Federation definitely seem to be more powerful (or the other two would have attacked), but their relative territorial extent compared with the Klingons/Romulans is speculative. In the Romulan case, since their empire is modeled partly on the Roman system of imperialism, they may be vastly multi-ethnic, with huge auxiliary legions composed of subject races. The Klingons seem to have a semi-feudal, semi-mercantile empire, a bit like the British, so again, may have significant diversity and territory.
The Federation was a union of essentially highly-developed independent homeworlds, each with star flight capabilities - sort of like a bunch of really ancient and economically powerful cites forming a union - London, Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Moscow - each with impressive technological and scientific credentials. Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar all had independent spaceflight capabilities, and while none were a match for the Klingon Empire's vast fleets individually - they were already powerful as small states, and together in a union they were probably like a concentrated lump of technical and economic power, like the EEA. If you look at say the Russian Federation, it's essentially a modern form of a sparse empire that was conquered out of various tribes and kingdoms in the 16th-19th centuries - it is more vast than the EU or USA in territory - but less economically developed since it wasn't a union of equals - the conquered subjects were tribes and kingdoms of Siberia and Central Asia. If I was to speculate for fun - maybe in ENT, the Federation forms as a small, highly-concentrated union (like the unification of Germany in the 1800s) - maybe in TOS the Federation and Klingon Empires were not too different in territory (like the USA vs Soviet Union) - but maybe by DS9 the Federation had become far larger.
You can see why the existence of this new union would be a major problems for the Romulans and Klingons. It raises the question of why their subjects would remain loyal in face of the Federation's liberal policies, and no doubt this is one of the biggest sources of tension provoking the Federation-Klingon Cold War of TOS - Federation power, self-determination and democracy threatening the ancient status quo in both empires. Dissidents would question why they must give resources to the Klingons, when they could be equal partners in the Federation. But probably their empires are smart enough to employ a wide variety of techniques, both forceful and intellectually appealing, to their subjects, to keep them in line - hence why they don't just collapse under massive rebellion immediately. In the Romulan case, being apparently semi-democratic, they may employ the tried and true Roman tactic of appealing to national security to keep citizens ideologically motivated - they may offer a conservative moral and political order that appeals to many worlds - or benefits the elites of these worlds enough that they supress dissent on behalf of the Romulan state - many may actually find it preferable to the Federation, depending on their values. The Klingons may offer an ideological justification to their subjects too, as well as simply putting down rebellions with force.
You know, the meaning of Union is different to Federation. Union is a model that the European Union use right now. While Federation is a model that the Russian and the United States of America use now. The two government type is different. For union type model, any members can leave as they wish. Just like Brexit. If England wants to exit the union, they can do it without any confrontation. (even if the other members protest or hate it). But for a Federation type of Government, each members will be considered as province. So let say, California want to exit their membership of the United States of America, they will be considered as rebel and thus the Federal Government will send their troop to pacify this rebel. That's why the American civil war was happen. If the United States use union model of government, then the Confederation could leave without any confrontation back then.
The other different between Union and Federation is that in Union, any members can conduct Foreign relationship; just like in Europe. They have also have their own military. But for a Federation, only the Federation government can conduct Foreign diplomacy, and have their own army.
So if the United Federation of Planets is a Federation, then their government / political model will be looks like United States of America or the Russian Federation, not a union. They are a country, not a union of countries. If Vulcan want to leave the Federation, Starfleet will definitely send their troop to pacify this "Rebel".
IF, the author (Roddenberry, etc) wants the Federation as a union just like you said, then why did they name it "Federation"? So either Roddenberry didn't know about the different between Union and Federation, or his intention was to portrait an American model of Government in Space. Which is very different than the government system that you write that I quote.
Last edited:
Actually union just means any country joining it's sovereignty with another.
In medieval times, a country could enter a "personal union" with another, whereby they were ruled by a single monarch (for example due to a marriage treaty), such as the union of Spain and Portugal. They however were still considered separate countries, and would often be divided between descendants. The USA is also a union - initially of 13 countries, but in forming "a more perfect union", they admitted many more.
+ 
+ 
+ Northern Ireland = 
One of the oldest unions in the world is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which was formed in a union of two kingdoms - The Kingdom of England and The Kingdom of Scotland. Today it is said to contain four home nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Another example was the similar Kalmar Union containing Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
I think what you mean is the difference between a federal union, and confederacy.
There is debate about whether the European Union is a "confederation" or "federation".
It is generally accepted to be the former, and moving toward the latter.
It is also generally said that confedracies don't last, and eventually become federal.
As for whether the United Federation of Planets is a federal union or not, really, nobody is sure. It certainly bears the name of a federal union. In some sources, it's treated more like a loose UN type organisation (especially certain non-canon books), with individual planets conducting policies which the federal government would conduct in the USA. The show itself does not give a lot of detail. But then there are different levels of federation in real life, with some seeming more like a confederation, so maybe in the 23rd century, newer types of union are in use.
In medieval times, a country could enter a "personal union" with another, whereby they were ruled by a single monarch (for example due to a marriage treaty), such as the union of Spain and Portugal. They however were still considered separate countries, and would often be divided between descendants. The USA is also a union - initially of 13 countries, but in forming "a more perfect union", they admitted many more.
+ 
+ 
+ Northern Ireland = 
One of the oldest unions in the world is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which was formed in a union of two kingdoms - The Kingdom of England and The Kingdom of Scotland. Today it is said to contain four home nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Another example was the similar Kalmar Union containing Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
I think what you mean is the difference between a federal union, and confederacy.
There is debate about whether the European Union is a "confederation" or "federation".
It is generally accepted to be the former, and moving toward the latter.
It is also generally said that confedracies don't last, and eventually become federal.
As for whether the United Federation of Planets is a federal union or not, really, nobody is sure. It certainly bears the name of a federal union. In some sources, it's treated more like a loose UN type organisation (especially certain non-canon books), with individual planets conducting policies which the federal government would conduct in the USA. The show itself does not give a lot of detail. But then there are different levels of federation in real life, with some seeming more like a confederation, so maybe in the 23rd century, newer types of union are in use.
Last edited:
The only reason I didn't use it is because Wikipedia didn't have the right size on the page I used - but yeah, the red hand of Ulster flag is most often used to represent Northern Ireland, such as in some sports, but isn't an official flag anymore (hence why it wasn't on the Wiki page).
For anyone interested in historical trivia, Ireland as a whole is still represented in the union jack, by the St Patrick's cross, from the time when it was a part of the union:
For anyone interested in historical trivia, Ireland as a whole is still represented in the union jack, by the St Patrick's cross, from the time when it was a part of the union:
Last edited:
My understanding is that in the union of the UK, strictly speaking Northern Ireland isn't a "country" like England and Scotland are. And exactly what Wales is, is hard to define and also might not be considered a country in it's own right.
The United States is not a Federation, it is a Republic.
Yes, it is. We signed an Act of Union just like Scotland and formed our own assembly (Stormont) for local government.
All four are countries in their own right, but Wales occupies a unique catagory were it and England are "Britain". Those and Scotland are "Great Britian" and all four are "UK of GB and Northern Ireland".
Why did they name it a "United Federation." Which I think is the teacher's union in New York City,
A business dictionary gives this (for Federation); An organization, comprised of a set of smaller organizations or companies, which seeks to bring attention to issues that are of importance to its members. Each organization that comprises the federation maintains control over its own operations.
Not exact what I already envision, but I kind of like it. And it doesn't mention being subordinate to the central organizing body.
Last edited:
Similar threads
