Star Trek Galaxy Map
- Thread starter wulfio
- Start date
I agree. As pretty as various Trek map publications have been, to me the lack of accounting for the third dimension robs them of whatever "utility" they might otherwise have.
The original Star Trek Maps (1979) featured three-dimentional space maps (to the best it could).
I've always thought instead of the way it's been represented in most official publications featuring Federeation or Klingon "space" sectioned off like huge landmasses, a more realistic representation would probably be various powers controlling numerous smaller sections of space (of various sizes, and centered on particular star systems, starbases, stc.), with neutral/free space in between. More like a set of interlinked bubbles, than a single massive area. This seems to be how the Klingon/Federation interactions occur for the bulk of TOS, where there seems to be a large neutral region wherein Federation and Klingons try and win planets/systems, yet passage between these various systems doesn't seem to be an issue. I guess a more earthbound analogy would be how islands are claimed by various powers, but are surrounded by "international" waters.
I've always thought instead of the way it's been represented in most official publications featuring Federeation or Klingon "space" sectioned off like huge landmasses, a more realistic representation would probably be various powers controlling numerous smaller sections of space (of various sizes, and centered on particular star systems, starbases, stc.), with neutral/free space in between. More like a set of interlinked bubbles, than a single massive area. This seems to be how the Klingon/Federation interactions occur for the bulk of TOS, where there seems to be a large neutral region wherein Federation and Klingons try and win planets/systems, yet passage between these various systems doesn't seem to be an issue. I guess a more earthbound analogy would be how islands are claimed by various powers, but are surrounded by "international" waters.
Yeah, that 2d map is so old. I'm thinking I had seen it even in the 90's. According to its scale, the Federation would only be like 400 ly across. If that were the case, we'd be very likely to see other powers on top or below. It would be likely that all the major powers touch or are in close proximity.
The Federation in that map could be a cylinder shape 400ly in diameter, it reached the "ceiling" and the "floor" of the galaxy disc.
Maybe less "growth" and more "claim."
In the Franz Joseph technical manual, there is a map of the Federation. The Federation itself is actually quite small, but is surrounded by a enormous "United Federation Treaty Exploration Territory."
A fancy way of saying "all of this is ours, because we say so."
Maybe less "growth" and more "claim."
In the Franz Joseph technical manual, there is a map of the Federation. The Federation itself is actually quite small, but is surrounded by a enormous "United Federation Treaty Exploration Territory."
A fancy way of saying "all of this is ours, because we say so."
Like manifest destiny or The Treaty of Tordesillas
I came across this comment posted a week ago on a youtube video:
The name of the user was Cellophanity Frog. His channel is:
https://www.youtube.com/user/cellophanity
However, his statement is what got me thinking about the official placement of the Klingon and Romulan empires. This was his statement:
"Finally, someone who is a Trek fan and is also OLD ENOUGH to get it RIGHT! I argued with tons of young idiots in ST online about the history of the alpha quadrant and they all point to an idiotic map made my Micheal Okuda in the 90's showing the romulan and Klingon empires and probably the ferengi and breen to , outside the Alpha Quadrant. THAT MAP IS IDIOTIC and was laughed at and disregarded by the showrunners of DS9, VOY and ENT after it was published along with all the fans at that time that saw it as inconsistent with all canon up to that point. Only newbs think of the Micheal Okuda Star Chart as gospel or canon, because they are not old enough to know any better. After the TOS series there were hundreds of books written as Star Trek grew in popularity during syndication. All of those paperback books had to be approved by Paramount itself, that's why they have the Paramount seal. They all had to go along with Star Trek canon and every single one of them refer to all the races in the vid as Alpha Quadrant races, if they referred to them as Beta Quadrant races they would not have been published, they would have been edited, to adhere to canon. So, before you point to some stupid map and say this vid creator is wrong, do some real research into before that map was created in the 90's and how the showrunners completely disregarded the placement of the races on that map in every series that followed its publication. Good Job on the Vid!"
How valid is the statement regarding the map being "laughed at" by the showrunners? Is his accusation of those that acknowledge the map by "newbs" valid, or is this just venomous elitism?
The name of the user was Cellophanity Frog. His channel is:
https://www.youtube.com/user/cellophanity
However, his statement is what got me thinking about the official placement of the Klingon and Romulan empires. This was his statement:
"Finally, someone who is a Trek fan and is also OLD ENOUGH to get it RIGHT! I argued with tons of young idiots in ST online about the history of the alpha quadrant and they all point to an idiotic map made my Micheal Okuda in the 90's showing the romulan and Klingon empires and probably the ferengi and breen to , outside the Alpha Quadrant. THAT MAP IS IDIOTIC and was laughed at and disregarded by the showrunners of DS9, VOY and ENT after it was published along with all the fans at that time that saw it as inconsistent with all canon up to that point. Only newbs think of the Micheal Okuda Star Chart as gospel or canon, because they are not old enough to know any better. After the TOS series there were hundreds of books written as Star Trek grew in popularity during syndication. All of those paperback books had to be approved by Paramount itself, that's why they have the Paramount seal. They all had to go along with Star Trek canon and every single one of them refer to all the races in the vid as Alpha Quadrant races, if they referred to them as Beta Quadrant races they would not have been published, they would have been edited, to adhere to canon. So, before you point to some stupid map and say this vid creator is wrong, do some real research into before that map was created in the 90's and how the showrunners completely disregarded the placement of the races on that map in every series that followed its publication. Good Job on the Vid!"
How valid is the statement regarding the map being "laughed at" by the showrunners? Is his accusation of those that acknowledge the map by "newbs" valid, or is this just venomous elitism?
I'm not entirely sure that scant references to the galactic quadrants in the 60s and the 80s invalidates the usage of the galactic quadrant nomenclatures...if that was what you were insinuating. If it wasn't, I apologize for jumping the gun.
I could have also sworn that the Delta Quadrant's name was used during that episode where Q shunted the NCC-1701-D into the region where the Borg resided.
I could have also sworn that the Delta Quadrant's name was used during that episode where Q shunted the NCC-1701-D into the region where the Borg resided.
Yeah, it might have, Memory-Alpha says 'The Price' was the first episode to Establish all 4 Quadrants.
Since the idea of four quadrants including Alpha and Beta was not yet even conceptualized during those years when all those TOS novels were being published and TNG didn't exist yet, and the novels are not canon anyway, I'm not sure exactly what that Youtube comment is supposed to be saying.
Edit: Wait... zombie thread. I'm outta here.
Kor
Personally, I don't like much the whole concept of "thread necromancy." Starting new threads (in my opinion) creates more clutter; commenting on already existing threads (again, in my opinion) keeps topics more consolidated.
In my defense, the reason why I posted on this thread was this:
"Already being discussed here: [link]. Please use the search feature before starting a new thread."
In my defense, the reason why I posted on this thread was this:
"Already being discussed here: [link]. Please use the search feature before starting a new thread."
Last edited:
Similar threads
