Star Trek Maps - 1980 science question

[foravalon]

I have a question for any of you astronomy buffs out there who've had exposure to this work. Do any of the real star placements on these 28 year old maps make sense?

I'm a big fan of Geoffrey Mandel & Co.'s later work in the 2002 book Star Charts. Of the 315 or so real stars shown charted out in that book, all the data is pretty sound and the stars laid out accurately from the perspective of the galactic plane (one glaring exception being "Taugus [Gamma Equulei]" but that's neither here nor there).

What I'm having trouble understanding are the intentions of the ST Maps creators. On the surface it appears that their intention was, like Charts, to orient the XY plane on that of the general Galactic plane with one point of reference oriented toward Galactic center and having the Galactic North and South being the Z direction, above and below the plane of the XY map. That seems to be the way it's described in the accompanying booklet. But if that is the case the placements of their real stars just don't make any sense to me.

Was the astronomy data they were using at the time just wildly inaccurate or were they just making up the real star positions? Am I misunderstanding the perspective of the Top View XY plane map?

 

[Christopher]

I'm pretty sure the star placements were as accurate as possible at the time. The HIPPARCOS survey, whose results were published in 1997, greatly increased the accuracy of our stellar-parallax distance measurements and revealed that a lot of stars were closer or farther than we'd believed.

Looking at the map and comparing it to both real and Star Charts maps, I'd have to say it's simply "upside-down" compared to the others. Look at the overviews of the galaxy in both works, and you'll see that the galactic arms are spiralling in the opposite directions, because they're looking at the galaxy from opposite sides. The Star Charts maps are looking "down" from galactic north (i.e. the galactic pole that's in our northern sky, located in the constellation Coma Berenices, about 60 degrees south of Earth's north celestial pole, since we're at a fair tilt relative to the galactic plane), and that's pretty much standard. The ST Maps are looking "up" from galactic south, however, even though the diagrams label it as galactic north. Perhaps this is because what we call galactic north is actually a physical south pole -- i.e. the direction from which the body's (galaxy's) rotation appears clockwise. So ST Maps was probably labelling galactic North and South in terms of physical rotational definitions, which is the opposite of how they're traditionally defined relative to Earth's North and South Poles. Perhaps the intent was to create a coordinate system that wasn't Earth-based.

(And I must say, it's a good thing I don't get my old ST Maps out very often. The seams tear a little bit more every time I unfold them.)

 

[Data Holmes]

(And I must say, it's a good thing I don't get my old ST Maps out very often. The seams tear a little bit more every time I unfold them.)

I love the maps. I... found, an electronic copy of the maps and the intro to navigation booklet someone scanned and put up on the net not too long ago. So I can examine the maps without getting out my physical copies. I was happy because they do tear on those seams real bad.

 

[foravalon]

Looking at the map and comparing it to both real and Star Charts maps, I'd have to say it's simply "upside-down" compared to the others.

That may solve some problems but causes a great deal many others, I'm sorry to say I couldn't disagree with you more on the case's simplicity. The angles are just out of whack regardless of the distances involved. looking at the plane from "beneath" solves the basic orientation of Deneb and Antares, but if that is the case then the orientation also needs to be rotated more than 40 degrees counterclockwise, which is fine, but then look at the closeup of the inset on chart B centering on Sol.

Logic totally disintegrates, it professes to be on the same plane with the same orientation as the map map on Chart A given its Y and X lines, but look at Gamma Hydra and Izar for example. Or Avior and Vega. If there is a perspective here that makes sense I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Christopher]

Again, the star positions would be based on pre-HIPPARCOS distance estimates. A lot of stars were once believed to be closer or farther than we now know them to be. In fact, if you're comparing the other stars' positions to Deneb and Antares, that may be part of the problem, since Antares is nearly twice as distant as we used to think and Deneb is many times more distant.

Also, this would probably not have been done with the help of handy-dandy computerized mapping software. It would be kind of involved to calculate star positions on 2-dimensional projections based on a polar coordinate system, so if they even managed to get the star positions close to right, I'd call that an impressive level of research and detail work. Certainly more than was necessary for the project, since the average buyer wouldn't know or care much about actual star positions.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd have to say it's simply "upside-down" compared to the others... the average buyer wouldn't know or care much about actual star positions

I've never really worried about the presentation. I do recall a friend of mine used to insist angrily that some of the axes in STM were incorrectly labeled, he assumed accidentally?

 

[Ronald Held]

An update in coordinates plus some other corrections would be welcome, but these nonfiction books do not sell well enough to get another edition.

 

[Therin of Andor]

An update in coordinates plus some other corrections would be welcome, but these nonfiction books do not sell well enough to get another edition.

Well, many of the errors of "Star Trek Maps" were corrected by "Star Trek Star Charts". There was a gap of many years between them.

I'm betting the next version we are offered will be an interactive holographic one you can use in your own Plane'arium (sic).

 

[Christopher]

I think "errors" is a little harsh... I'd rather say that it was updated to reflect more current knowledge (in terms of both real astronomy and Trek cosmology).

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think "errors" is a little harsh... I'd rather say that it was updated to reflect more current knowledge (in terms of both real astronomy and Trek cosmology).

Sure, but I was also thinking of a few paste-up errors, typos, and some omissions and logic leaps in the text of the accompanying guidebook.

 

[Sci]

Is it just me, or is getting terribly concerned over the placement of real-world stars in Star Trek maps a bit like getting worried about trying to reconcile the map of Middle Earth with the real map of Eurasia?

 

[Therin of Andor]

trying to reconcile the map of Middle Earth with the real map of Eurasia?

I used to assume Middle Earth just faded away like the Elves. Sorta like how Atlantis sank into the ocean.

 

[foravalon]

I'd have to say it's simply "upside-down" compared to the others... the average buyer wouldn't know or care much about actual star positions

I've never really worried about the presentation. I do recall a friend of mine used to insist angrily that some of the axes in STM were incorrectly labeled, he assumed accidentally?

Your friend is pretty much correct, Cartesian coordinates are usually oriented with the Y-axis going "up" in the positive direction, so to speak, and "down" in the negative direction. The X-axis goes left and right with neg to the left and pos to the right.

"Maps" has it sideways, oriented with the X-axis going "up" in the positive direction, and "down" in the negative direction. The Y-axis goes left and right with Positive to the Left and Negative to the Right.

Again, the star positions would be based on pre-HIPPARCOS distance estimates. A lot of stars were once believed to be closer or farther than we now know them to be. In fact, if you're comparing the other stars' positions to Deneb and Antares, that may be part of the problem, since Antares is nearly twice as distant as we used to think and Deneb is many times more distant.

Again, regardless of the distance, the Angles Aren't Correct. The ideas that these discrepancies are based on Distance from Sol alone is just wrong. The stars in this view of "Maps" are in opposing corners of the sky. Distance does not change apparent direction in this case.

 

[foravalon]

Is it just me, or is getting terribly concerned over the placement of real-world stars in Star Trek maps a bit like getting worried about trying to reconcile the map of Middle Earth with the real map of Eurasia?

I'm putting the word out to see if anyone understands what the original intentions of the authors of "Maps" might have been regarding the "science" of it. If there's some way to make sense of what they've got I'd love to adapt that to my personal project.

One aspect of that project is using the Star Trek Maps coordinates system in a meaningful manner, but if it's just jibberish I'd like to know that too.

 

[Christopher]

Again, regardless of the distance, the Angles Aren't Correct. The ideas that these discrepancies are based on Distance from Sol alone is just wrong.

Hey, what's with the attitude? You asked a question and I tried to help. I considered the evidence, I got out my maps -- I actually subjected my own personal copy of this old, rare, fragile document to further damage just so I could try to help you answer your questions. I'm trying to help you here, and I'm going to a fair amount of trouble to do so. And you respond with this kind of rude dismissal?

The stars in this view of "Maps" are in opposing corners of the sky. Distance does not change apparent direction in this case.

What stars are you talking about? If you actually care about understanding this rather than just looking for an excuse to gripe, then give me specifics. Name the stars. Work with me, like I'm trying to work with you.

 

[foravalon]

There's no attitude intended Chris, and I do appreciate your input, in fact I had you in mind when I framed the initial post and subject line. I'm directly responding to your comments though, you said it was a simple case of orientation and I'm saying it's not so simple. I said why, and you repeated your position again, as if you hadn't seen or hadn't understood my reply, so I elucidated further and I explained once more why the position doesn't hold up. I had hoped the hypothesis was valid as much as you did.

But it's just the facts, it's not intended to be rude or dismissive, but it is the truth. Based on your theory alone, the data still doesn't make sense. And I'm as disappointed as you are because, unless there's a way of interpreting the science of this work in a way that does make sense, then the credibility of our mutually old, rare, and fragile documents just leans further toward the rubbish heap.

Check it out, these are a few of the examples of what I'm talking about:

This is how we believe the stars appear from the same supposed perspective, looking "up" toward the direction of Galactic North :

The Sol system in the above map is in the center of the cross. Avior is far off the left side of this lower map past Canopus and quite a departure from the upper map! Vega is not labeled here but is located right behind the "C" in Arcturus.

The stars in this view of "Maps" are in opposing corners of the sky. Distance does not change apparent direction in this case.

What stars are you talking about? If you actually care about understanding this rather than just looking for an excuse to gripe, then give me specifics. Name the stars. Work with me, like I'm trying to work with you.

I'm so sorry, I understand now, you must have missed my specific examples from before. I can completely see how you could get the impression that I didn't care to understand what I was talking about, or how you could feel that I was just looking for an excuse to gripe if you had missed that key post. Sorry for the confusion. To repeat my earlier post:

Logic totally disintegrates, [the inset Chart B] professes to be on the same plane with the same orientation as the map on Chart A given its Y and X lines, but look at Gamma Hydra and Izar for example. Or Avior and Vega. If there is a perspective here that makes sense I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Timo]

Actually, I'd say Christopher is very close to the truth with his "upside down" comment. According to Mandel himself, the error in Star Maps is fairly elementary: the star positions are the best guesstimates of the 1980s, but the plane of reference chosen to display them is different from the plane of reference used for measuring them. Essentially, Mandel got data that gave the positions of the stars wrt the Earth equatorial plane - and then portrayed the data using the galactic plane as the reference plane.

So what we see is the real sky of the 1980s, but flipped by something like 90 degrees so that "south" becomes "corewards", resulting in a "compressed", "stretched" and "inverted" view as seen from galactic north.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

I think Timo's right. Playing around with Celestia, I find that if I orient my view so that it's looking toward Sol from close to 200 ly out and facing directly toward Polaris*, the star positions closely match what's in Mandel's inset map. So that map is oriented with respect to Earth's north/south axis rather than galactic north/south. The larger map seems to match that orientation as well, if I pull farther out.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with Timo's phrasing, though; I'd say, rather, that Mandel displayed the stars using Earth's equatorial plane, but mistakenly gave the impression that it was the galactic plane. So he's off by about 60 degrees rather than 90.


*Basically I centered on Earth, circled it until I was looking face-on at Antarctica, then pulled back nearly 200 ly.

 

[Timo]

Right, bad phrasing. Mandel thought he was using the galactic plane as his reference plane in positioning the stars vis-á-vis the paper, but in fact he ended up using Earth's equatorial plane as the plane of the paper, because in contrast with what he believed, the star positions he possessed had been given wrt to Earth's equatorial plane and not wrt the galactic plane. (How's that for an even worse phrasing?)

And I originally also typo'ed that the mistake was in the Charts when I meant Maps...

Incidentally, Maps could now be seen as an alternate angle into the same universe portrayed in Charts, giving some 3D data where the latter book alone only gives 2D. Granted, some political borders and enemy positions have been changed in both distance and bearing, but some stuff remains in the original Maps positions.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[foravalon]

W00t! Thanks to Timo & christopher for the input, there's nothing like a solid lead and definitely nothing better then a little insider info, so big thanks once again to you Timo! (now any word on what the deal is with Taugus (Gamma Equulei) from "Charts"? j/k ) I definitely believe the upside down sentiment is a step in the right direction, it's the only to get Antares on the left and Deneb on the right. I oriented the perspective of my reference pic up there to reflect that as well, but it soon became apparent that just doing that and tweaking the distances didn't solve the problems and wasn't the solution. Thanks to your insight though I've got another step in the right direction, so once again, w00t!

Out of curiosity, regarding the parsec coordinates from the "Maps" booklet, do you have any idea if those were ultimately based off the equitorial plane or indeed the galactic? Without being able to trust the old distance figures comparing the XYZ numbers of the old to the new for orientation becomes a bit more challenging.