Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandell

[EJA]

Just how reliable is this source? One reason I ask is that one chart in it depicts the planet Neural, from TOS "A Private Little War", as being in the Alpha Quadrant, on the "right-hand side", so to speak, of the UFP. And yet the TV episode shows that the Klingons were present there. How the heck did the Klingons travel all that way from their home territory to what to them would be the far side of Federation space, without being detected? It would make more sense to me to place Neural's location closer to Klingon space. That was the impression I got when I read issue three of the "Klingons: Blood Will Tell" miniseries. Anyone had similar ideas?

Also, I thought it might be fun to try and locate our favourite planets and locations from Trek literature on the atlas. To start off with, how about, say, Chal, from "The Ashes of Eden"?

 

[Christopher]

I don't know if it's meaningful to call it "reliable," because it's not like there's an actual reality it's depicting. It's one person's interpretation of a bunch of largely random and inconsistent information from a fictional universe.

Apparently the reason for Neural's placement in Star Charts is that fan references in the past (including ones Mandel worked on) placed Neural in the Zeta Bootis system, which would be in the Alpha Quadrant direction. That was a creative choice based on non-canonical information, and the reader is free to disregard it, since it's all made up anyway. Exercises like this aren't about being right or wrong, they're about being creative.

Keep in mind, though, that space is three-dimensional. It's always possible to go "above" or "below" a territory as well as around it. Indeed, Zeta Bootis would be pretty far north of the galactic plane, well "above" the plane of the page in the Star Charts maps.

 

[Section 31]

Keep in mind, though, that space is three-dimensional. It's always possible to go "above" or "below" a territory as well as around it. Indeed, Zeta Bootis would be pretty far north of the galactic plane, well "above" the plane of the page in the Star Charts maps.

Indeed, I think people often get wrapped around the axle thinking of space in terms of "territory", when more of a nautical analogy is appropriate. The British Navy can be in the Pacific ocean, or an Asian navy can venture into the Atlantic, even though it's on the opposite side of the planet from their own territory.

 

[captcalhoun]

since we handed Hong Kong back to China, I think our most easterly naval presence would be in the Indian Ocean, supporting ops in Afghanistan and using Deigo Garcia...
[/pedant]

the one that really needs moving is Berengaria. It's depicted as off near Ferengi space and after the NX-01 visited it in "Bound" i think it needs moving closer to the Romulan and Klingon border areas, particularly since the Orions border Klingon space and they showed up in "Bound" near Berengaria...

 

[Lynx]

I love "Star Charts".

But unfortunately, there are too many errors which ruins what could have been one of the best Star Trek publications ever.

As a fan of Voyager, especially the three first seasons, I was very dissapointed with the errors on the pages covering those seasons.

Too many important items missing, planets and star systems placed totally wrong, some planets on Voysger's route placed in the wrong order and so on.

If someone's interested, I can make a list out of it.

One of the first thing I did was to scan the Voyager season 1-3 pages and re-edit them with a photo program in my computer. It took some time but the result was brilliant!

I haven't checked the maps for Voyager's seasons 4-7 that closely. I have noticed that some important stars and planets are missing in the Alpha and Beta Quadrant maps and I'm afraid that there are some errors there too.

No, I'm not out to trash Geoffrey Mandel's work here. I still love the book, there were a lot of great information in them and it' still one of my favorite Star Trek items. But it could have been better.

I really wish that Geoffrey Mandel would make an update of the book with the errors fixed, maybe an expanded version with more information about different star systems. I would gladly provide my edited Delta Quadrant maps for free if that happened.

What I really would like to see is some combination of Star Charts and that old "Worlds of the Federation", if anyone remember that book. Now that would be something!

 

[foravalon]

Well, I'd like to see your delta quad revisions, and that list of errors if you've got it.

The book does have its flaws but I do think the majority of it holds up pretty well, and I think it still is one of the best Star Trek publications ever. The Delta Quad stuff isn't that big a deal to me as it's outside the main playground IMO and this is probably where our two viewpoints diverge. I also really appreciate the fact that many authors of late have made an effort and have been using it for reference. Consistency is a brilliant thing for us anal fans and any attempt to reconcile things is a noble one.

With regards to Berengaria's placement, just to put it out there, the NX-01 enterprise never did make it there on screen, it was only ever a stated destination, then the orions showed up and things got wacky. Episodically we don't see our heroes again until 3 episodes later when they're back on Earth with the Secretary of Agriculture, (<- bizarre West Wing ref, don't mind me). In universe it's almost a month later after Bound and who knows what ground has been covered by our heroes since then, hell they can make it to Qo'noS in four days, Berengaria's not that far off. Bound showed us the beginning of their journey, not the end.

With regards to the Alpha Beta Quads, I don't think that "some important stars and planets are missing" per se, I think it's a case of they're simply not being included, of the many many star systems, planets, and species which have been either shown or mentioned in the whole of trek, Mandel took about 900 of them and put them in the book. I don't know about you, but it's pretty busy. He says he's got a database which is even more expansive then the items included there, so likelye those places you mentioned just didn't make the cut.

 

[Lynx]

OK, here are the errors I found on the Voyager pages in "Star Charts":

Page 82
Talax and Rinax are placed somwhere beyond the Caretaker’s array while they should be located on page 83 between Avery (Vidiia) and Briori, somewhere near the text “Kazon Collective”.

The quantum singularity in “Parallax” has been located near the Komar Nebula on page 83 when it should be placed between Ocampa and Markov-Kalto on page 82. Maybe Ilidaria should be relocated there too and the Ilidaria planet near the Komar Nebula should be renamed “Ilidarian colony” or something like that. There can't be two Ilidaria

Page 83
The Leola root planet in “State Of Flux” is missing.

The photonic star in “Heroes and Demons” is missing.

The cloud of spaceborn creatures in “Elogium” is missing.

The distortion ring in “Twisted” is missing.

Page 84
The time stream where Kim was sent into an anlternate future is missing. Should be after Tarok on Voyager's route.

Sky Spirits Homeworld (“Tattoo”)and Suspirias Array (“Cold Fire”)should change places with each other and be placed between Planet Hell (“Parturition”) and Mokra (“Resistance”) somewhere after Botha Space (if following Voyager’s route) with the Sky Spirit Planet coming before Suspiria’s array. Mokra and Pralor should also change place with each other so that Mokra is coming after Suspirias Array and before Pralor on Voyager's route.

The order of the objects on Voyager's route should be: Planet Hell, Botha Space, Sky Spirit's Planet, Suspiria's Array, Mokra and Pralor.

Planet Mithren should be located near Botha space, not in the Hakonian Order on page 82.

Page 85
Fina Vidiia should be placed between Rakosa and Hemikek.

Page 86
Nezu (“Rise”)and Mikal Traveler Outpost (“Darkling”)should change place with each other with Nezu coming before Mikal on Voyager’s route.

OK, I can understand that some non-stationary objects like the distortion ring in "Twisted" were left out because of their non-stationary status. But there are some stationary objects which are clearly misplaced or missing.
But if Geoffrey Mandel had a deadline, I can understand if he didn't have the time to check everything. I've been dabbling myself with trying to place objects mentioned in the Voyager books on my own edited maps and it wasn't before last year, when the book "Voyages Of Imagination" was published until I got it correct (ant there are still some uncertainities involved). So I can clearly see the problem with mapping the Star Trek universe.

 

[Christopher]

Another error is on p. 92: The Vaadwaur homeworld should be placed after the subspace-corridor jump, not before it.

 

[Ronald Held]

These errors can be fixed for the correct amount of funds.

 

[Garrovick]

Star Charts is the second most important book, the Encyclopedia being first, for Trek fans to have.

It's an excellent book.

All it really needed was a few pen and ink changes by the readers in the areas they are the experts in. Most books in this genre need a few margin notes anyway.

For just one example. In my own fandom reality. Voyager mistakes? Not being a Voyager "fan", I would have never been noticed them.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

These errors can be fixed for the correct amount of funds.

Are you providing said funds?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Mandell's earlier book Star TRek Maps is also worth a look, if you can find a copy. I find the style of the earlier work preferable to the latter one, though Maps was done in 1980, so only TOS, TAS and TMP are covered in it.

But any work such as this is never going to please everyone, errors not withstanding.

 

[Dayton3]

It is a beautiful book.

But I don't particularly care for it.

Some of the information about the planets is ridiculous.

Like Earth having a smaller population than it does today.

 

[foravalon]

Dude, have you seen how many colonies earth has established? I'm surprised there's anyone left there at all. Except for Paris and San Francisco, it's just a quaint little tourist trap now.

Well, there is Disneyland...

...but that probably got wiped out by the Great Hermosa Earthquake in 2047,

But then there is Disney World...

...oh wait, I forgot, the Xindi.

Naw, it's pretty much just Paris and San Fransisco now.

And didn't you hear? They have a Pill for men now, or a "contraception injection" at any rate.

 

[Christopher]

Some of the information about the planets is ridiculous.

Like Earth having a smaller population than it does today.

Reducing Earth's population is absolutely essential to achieving the kind of utopian world seen in ST. The human population on Earth may already be beyond the planet's capacity to sustain; at best, the Earth can support the current world population at an average Second-World standard of living, and if the population increases much more, then the average standard of living would drop to Third-World levels, if not starvation levels. In order to support everyone on Earth with the high standard of living seen in the Federation, the planet would realistically need a population of only 1-2 billion. Although that's not taking offworld food production or replicators into account, so Mandel's figure of 4.2 billion may still be reasonable. Even so, controlling and reducing the size of the Earth's population is the only possible path toward a utopian future like ST's rather than a dystopian Blade Runner-style future or worse.

 

[Sci]

It is a beautiful book.

But I don't particularly care for it.

Some of the information about the planets is ridiculous.

Like Earth having a smaller population than it does today.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. The planet's population today is large enough that it's causing a lot of problems, and a lot of that population growth has to do with a lack of education. In fact, that's a very universal pattern in demographics: The more educated a populace tends to be, the lower its birthrate tends to be.

Since one of Trek's basic creative conceits is that poverty and -- from what we can tell -- lack of education have been eliminated, it makes perfect sense that the planetary population would be significantly lower than today's barely-sustainable six billion.

 

[Dayton3]

You do realize that the entire current population of Earth, if each one had the same space as a small house, could fit into a land area the size of Texas don't you?

Overpopulation worries have been around for years. Earths population has doubled in that time and there are fewer people who starve around the world now than then.

With the technology shown in Star Trek, the Earth could easily sustain a population in the 25 to 40 billion range and still be quite nice.

Incidentally, in the FASA Federation sourcebook, they list Earths population as 24 billion.

And off world colonization will never reduce the population of the Earth.

That is physically impossible.

How many people live on Earth today?

Six billion plus.

Take 100 million people off world (a staggering figure even with Trek technology) and how many do you still have.

Six billion plus

 

[Sci]

You do realize that the entire current population of Earth, if each one had the same space as a small house, could fit into a land area the size of Texas don't you?

But it takes significantly more land than that to support a First World lifestyle for each of those individuals. Agriculture, energy production, transportation, manufacturing, etc? As it stands, if everyone in the world today lived the typical lifestyle of a First Worlder, there would need to be two or three Earths. (Seriously, check it out.)

Since, obviously, no one wants to live a lifestyle with lower living standards than that of a First Worlder, and since population growth is inversely related to education levels -- and since World War III and the resulting indirect deaths would carry a very, very large body count -- the logical presumption is that Earth's population would probably be decreased by at least a third by the time of the 24th Century.

Overpopulation worries have been around for years. Earths population has doubled in that time and there are fewer people who starve around the world now than then.

Evidence? Last I checked, something like a third of the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day. Thousands of people die of starvation and malnutrition every day because of extreme poverty.

With the technology shown in Star Trek, the Earth could easily sustain a population in the 25 to 40 billion range and still be quite nice.

Maybe it could. On the other hand, many warp reactors aren't allowed within planetary atmospheres for fear of what the accidental release of that amount of energy could do to the ecosystem and to human populations. We don't know. But we do know that overpopulation tends to be bad for any species, we do know that the lower a population is, the further its resources can go for each individual, and we do know that people tend to reproduce less when they have access to greater education and to contraception. A lower population is just better for everyone involved -- that doesn't mean that people should kill each other, of course, it just means that people shouldn't have huge families. There's really no need to go beyond maintaining replacement-level growth, if that.

 

[Trent Roman]

Overpopulation worries have been around for years. Earths population has doubled in that time and there are fewer people who starve around the world now than then.

Hmm. We're at six point eight billion now. Half that is three point four. I don't have an exact date for that number, but we hit three billion in 1961 and four billion thirteen years later (damn lot o' sex right there, yo), so let's say around around 1966. The last estimate from the United Nations World Food Program in 2007 identified 820 million 'hungry' people (the number will be noticeably higher today, with rising food prices cutting deeply into already meager food budgets). So, by your reconning, there would have to have been just shy of 1 billion - or nearly one-third of the planetary population in 1961 - starving in the mid-sixties. Frankly, I'd like to see your sources for those kinds of numbers. If you told me the statistical proportion of hungry people to the population as a whole had gone down in the last fourty years, then I'd be more inclined to believe you. But less people going hungry in real numbers? I don't think so.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Lynx]

Star Charts is the second most important book, the Encyclopedia being first, for Trek fans to have.

It's an excellent book.

All it really needed was a few pen and ink changes by the readers in the areas they are the experts in. Most books in this genre need a few margin notes anyway.

For just one example. In my own fandom reality. Voyager mistakes? Not being a Voyager "fan", I would have never been noticed them.

You're right. And that gives me an idea.

Why not a Star Charts department in Memory Alpha or Memory Beta with the maps based on Geoffrey Mandell's maps for fans of the show to edit and develope. OK, it's a copyright thing here but it would at least be worth a try.