Star Charts/Stellar Cartography: the Sector System

[DEWLine]

Meanwhile, for the nearby regions, looks like Kevin Jardine's making progress on his "Near space" (50 pc/165 ly) map.

https://twitter.com/galaxy_map/status/1249985832976556033

He's posted an example of the level of detail he's aiming for:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVjZDhQWkAAkc49?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

 

[DEWLine]

Sidebar question: since "Octonary" got raised as a term for an eight-star system in "Nepenthe" re: Aia's host-stars, what are the words for stellar systems between "quadrinary" and "octonary"? Asking for a personal project.

And may as well ask about nine- and ten-star systems, just in case some scriptwriter or novelist or comics writer ups the ante down the road.

 

[Christopher]

Sidebar question: since "Octonary" got raised as a term for an eight-star system in "Nepenthe" re: Aia's host-stars, what are the words for stellar systems between "quadrinary" and "octonary"? Asking for a personal project.

Well, first off, it's not "quadrinary." It goes:

1: unary (not really used for stars)
2: binary
3: ternary or trinary (less accurate but more common)
4: quaternary
5: quintenary
6: sextenary
7: septenary
8: octenary (not octonary)
9: nonary or novenary
10: denary or decenary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arity

 

[Sgt_G]

Rigel Planetary References for all series:

No, no, no. Don't confuse all these planets for the star named Rigel in the Orion constellation. All of those planets were named after the famous explorer Jonathan Rigel who discovered them.

All kidding aside, this make more sense that having THAT many habitable planets in orbit around a single star.

 

[Henoch]

No, no, no. Don't confuse all these planets for the star named Rigel in the Orion constellation. All of those planets were named after the famous explorer Jonathan Rigel who discovered them.

All kidding aside, this make more sense that having THAT many habitable planets in orbit around a single star.

Per the web:

Although Rigel appears as a single star in the bottom right corner of Orion , it is actually a binary star system consisting of Rigel A and Rigel B, the latter of which cannot be seen by the unaided eye.
And
Rigel, also called Beta Orionis, one of the brightest stars in the sky, intrinsically as well as in appearance. A blue-white supergiant in the constellation Orion, Rigel is about 870 light-years from the Sun and is about 47,000 times as luminous. A companion double star, also bluish white, is of the sixth magnitude. The name Rigel derives from an Arabic term meaning “the left leg of the giant,” referring to the figure of Orion.

So, being a binary star system, this gives two stars to divide the planets between. We hear there is a Rigel 12, so at a minimum, there are 12 planets. Of these 12, we only know for sure that seven planets are possibly habitable with Rigel 10 barely habitable (an outpost in ENT) and who really knows if Rigel 12 (a dilithium mining planet) is habitable or not. In addition, we now speculate that gas giants could have habitable planets though outside the goldilocks zone. Six or Seven habitable planets is not impossible in the binary Rigel star system. YMMV .

 

[Christopher]

So, being a binary star system, this gives two stars to divide the planets between.

Except Rigel is only c. 8 million years old, so any planets it has would be half-molten balls of lifeless rock, if any have even finished forming yet. The problem with Trek's habit of putting planets around well-known named stars is that those are the brightest stars, and thus are usually supergiants way too young and short-lived to have habitable planets.

Also, it's actually got at least four components -- the other "half" of the binary is a close pair of blue main-sequence stars (Ba & Bb) orbited in turn by the C star. So it's a binary within a binary within a binary.

 

[DEWLine]

@Christopher, thank you for the refresher/correction/clarification. Amending my project's stuff accordingly!

 

[DEWLine]

Sidebar thought: We already know about the Romulan Star Empire breaking up into a batch of successor states. Surely, the borders of the other known great powers won't be static either?

 

[Markonian]

Sidebar thought: We already know about the Romulan Star Empire breaking up into a batch of successor states. Surely, the borders of the other known great powers won't be static either?

As an example, Vashti was a Federation colony world before 2385 according to PIC: "Last Best Hope", but has dropped out of (or has been dropped by) the Federation by 2399.

 

[Sgt_G]

For what it's worth, this is the list of "stars" on the Federation map as published in the Franz Joseph Tech Manual. I hand-copied them, and if I counted right, I got them all. Still, it is possible I missed one.

``````````````````````````````````````
Ahzdar, Alam'Ak, Alfeaz Hajj, Alfr, Altair, Androcus, Annobon, Astrad
Behr'Ak, Caspan, Czar'Ak, Ekinus, Elohim, Esabl, Eskiis, Fomalhaut
Galina, Ghar, Ghondr, Hiemdal, Horok, Jassan, Jenshahn, Kars, Kasimar
Kep Salu, Kestral, Ketoi, K'Hotan, K'Ushui, Maat, Mazda, Mengen, Mizazh
Mondoloy, Mongo, Nakarat, Ndele, Oblik, Oomaru, Pari, Peagan, Pelione
Phardos, Pilar, Procyon, Qal'At, Qizan, Quindar, Rigil, Salayna
Samaara, Shaandra, Shahr, Sinuiji, Sirius, Tajarhi, Tali, Temir, Thelonii
Tholus, Tikopai, Tulan, Tutakai, Xanthii, Yaan, Zaahm, Za'Faran, Zindar
``````````````````````````````````````

 

[DEWLine]

Sidebar note inspired by @Sgt_G : there was a "Non-Fiction Fridays" discussion of Franz Joseph's work organized by Larry Nemecek on Zoom yesterday. Those maps came up briefly in the course of a discussion mainly intended for the old blueprints of the TOS Enterprise as we knew it. I expect that we'll return to those maps in a future session.

 

[Timo]

No, no, no. Don't confuse all these planets for the star named Rigel in the Orion constellation. All of those planets were named after the famous explorer Jonathan Rigel who discovered them.

And don't confuse O'Ryan's Planet with that constellation, either...

Except Rigel is only c. 8 million years old, so any planets it has would be half-molten balls of lifeless rock, if any have even finished forming yet. The problem with Trek's habit of putting planets around well-known named stars is that those are the brightest stars, and thus are usually supergiants way too young and short-lived to have habitable planets.

Keyword being "putting". If I were creating planets for my civilizations like, say, the Kalandans did, I'd be happy to choose high energy stars for all the benefits they offer (including a potentially vast Goldilocks Zone if I want to insert a dozen Class M worlds there). So what if the star goes wild in a few hundred thousand years? Or even ten thousand? That alone's no reason not to have profitable planets there for as long as I can.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DEWLine]

Sidebar: I went and checked Canada 411. Wouldn't you know it: there actually are families sharing the surname "Rigel".

 

[DEWLine]

Theory: Zakdorn's parent stars might be Lambda-1 Tucanae.
References: Wikipedia profile on Lambda-1 Tucanae
Sector overview expected (pre-GAIA DR2).

 

[Henoch]

And don't confuse O'Ryan's Planet with that constellation, either...



Keyword being "putting". If I were creating planets for my civilizations like, say, the Kalandans did, I'd be happy to choose high energy stars for all the benefits they offer (including a potentially vast Goldilocks Zone if I want to insert a dozen Class M worlds there). So what if the star goes wild in a few hundred thousand years? Or even ten thousand? That alone's no reason not to have profitable planets there for as long as I can.

Timo Saloniemi

I'm with Timo on this one. Hotter stars give larger goldilocks zones, and four or five system stars give four or five more goldilocks zones. Who said all or even any of those planets are natural. Just the fact that six or seven are habitable proves the opposite. Terraforming by some other/unknown humanoid race is very plausible. I'm not buying that these aliens moved/created planets around the system, but more plausible, they just used what was available.

Almost sounds like Firefly's Verse...

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I know there's 2 major map types being used in Star Trek.

There's the 2D Grid with a Top Down view.

And then there's the Radial Disk Sector one.

IRL, there will probably be many different map types if we have a UFP that has as many races as they have and as many alien species as there are.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sector

Is there a more common sense Mapping System for the masses that you can think of for the common folk?

I have my ideas already, but I was wondering if you guys can think of a simpler system.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I think the old Radial Division of the Galaxy would arrange the sectors like this with straight lines along the quadrant axes, but expanded vertically into 3D.

Squarish Sub-Sectors would look this:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20050918043825&path-prefix=en

 

[DEWLine]

The closer in towards Sgr A* you get, the smaller and more wedge-shaped the sectors would become.

Right?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The closer in towards Sgr A* you get, the smaller and more wedge-shaped the sectors would become.

Right?

Only the center 4 Sectors would be truly Wedge shaped.

The rest would be some variant of a 3D Quadrilateral shaped like a pie slice with the pointy tip chopped off.

 

[Henoch]

I think the old Radial Division of the Galaxy would arrange the sectors like this with straight lines along the quadrant axes, but expanded vertically into 3D.

Squarish Sub-Sectors would look this:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20050918043825&path-prefix=en

I like the radial representation. Four Galaxy Quadrants (big "Q"). For your image above, 500 ly radial sections (or sub-quadrants which TOS shortened down to quadrant, little "q") gives a total size of 100,000 lys in diameter and perhaps 4 quadrants high gives 2000 ly thickness to encompass most of the galaxy. Subdivide each quadrant into 20 ly sectors to define the galaxy. Fits most of the TOS dialogs where both terms are used where quadrants seem bigger than sectors.