The Talos IV sky and Forbidden Planet

[throwback]

One example -

Page 44. Beta Comae Berenices is a Type-F main sequence star thirty light years away from Sol. In the book, this star is depicted as Sol's closest neighbor and is roughly 2 light-years from Sol.

Just within the first circle, these stars are shown closer to Sol then they actually are:
* Wolf 424
** Real World: 14.2 light years away
** Book: ~3 light years away
* Epsilon Eridani
** Real World: 10.522 light years away
** Book: ~8 light years away

The first circle represents the area of space that surrounds the Sol System, and covers the first ten light years from Sol. So, Epsilon Eridani wouldn't be in the circle; it would be at the border.

The stars Tau Ceti, Van Maanen's Star, Epsilon Indi, 61 Ursae Majoris, Alpha Comae Berenices, and Lalande 25372 are all at distances greater than 10 light years away from Sol, and are depicted as being closer to Sol then they are actually.

I understand the map is attempting to depict a third dimensional space, and that locations may actually be above or below the plane of the map. For instance, Vulcan is south of Andor. However, this doesn't negate the problem which is that the stars are shown closer to Earth then they are, and this can cause confusion with the average reader. These become errors.

I think there were better ways of depicting the galaxy than what was presented in the book.

One other thing, the author most believe that every alien ship is named after a star for I am finding star after star that has a ship named for it. Example, the starship Fesarius is named after the star Fesarius.

I apologize for going on a tangent here; however, as this work is the closest we have to canon sources in terms of depicting the Star Trek universe, it's terribly disappointing. (Geoffrey Mandel worked on the tv shows and movies.)

For the Talos system, the system is identified as a quadrinary system with the spectral class M0IV. The absolute magnitude of the stars is 0.1, and there are five planets.
* Planet 1 - Class-B (Geomorteus) - Mercury-type Planet
* Planet 2 - Class-H (Desert)
* Planet 3 - Class-L (Marginal)
* Planet 4 - Class-M
* Planet 5 - Class-D (Asteroid/Moon) Luna-type Planet

The book is not clear if the system is named Talos Star Group, or the system is in the Talos Star Group.

 

[Timo]

I don't understand your objection. First you pretend that you think the stars are in incorrect places. Then you reveal that you know there is no error after all, merely the potential for an ignorant reader to get confused.

What is your great idea for reorganizing the book for greater readability? Pop-up cardboard features? A full orrery of little balls on strings? Depicting 3D space in a static 2D work just plain can't be done in a practical manner.

For the interested reader, the stars can be found online in dynamic 3D media, in the likes of Celestia. Which is where future attempts at Star Trek cartography will no doubt go as well. The Star Charts was optimized for a different market niche, one that may already have disappeared for good.

as this work is the closest we have to canon sources in terms of depicting the Star Trek universe, it's terribly disappointing. (Geoffrey Mandel worked on the tv shows and movies.)

Mandel is also veteran of an earlier attempt at Trek charts, the Star Maps. Those came with a booklet that featured short descriptions of locations of interest, including a set of Cartesian coordinates to allow the reader to sleuth for three-dimensionality. (Unfortunately, there was a minor error there: the XY plane of the coordinates wasn't aligned with the galactic plane, as claimed, but with the plane of the ecliptic of the Sol system, thus e.g. throwing Rigel away from the galactic rim and to protruding from the side of the galactic disk instead...)

I really can't see how any printed work could do better. There are always going to be minor errors, and the work is always going to be somewhat outdated as long as there are new Trek shows or movies still appearing. Some data will always be left out, and some interpretations will always be contested. But I can't see anybody buying a set of charts that features the full known starscape in scientific detail while leaving the interesting Trek features in a distinct minority; zoom-ins and limiting viewpoints are in the interest of the reader here.

Timo Saloniemi