Corrected Chi Warp Charts

[SIR SIG]

Well it seems just you and me doing the talking here AlexR!

Well yes I'm happier with 129.2 as chi. So we hold this for all of fed space c. 2271 (TOS). For simplicity sake we might as well keep the same value (129.2) for all of fed territory/explored space in TNG et al. c.2375
over the given distance 8000 ly.

Given that Rigel at app. 900 ly is at or near the Klingon border then 7000 ly needs to be 'found' to get a direct line from Rigel to ? to get and 8000 ly stretch for 2 fed places at there greatest extent.
Tack on Deneb and still there's 4000 ly to 'find'.

Maybe just put a CNB in Sol system?

Right then, were firm on 129.2 for Chi in fed space/explored? Then perhaps outside this area chi could be 12.92 for simplicity!
From TOS to TNG and the maps just moved the decimal point

13 days flat out works for a Romulan War time period.

And 30 days at warp 3 is a good value too.

With tolerance i'm trying to ask weather the chi value is the exception or the rule. Or in better terms do we say that using chi=129.2 gets you there in average time and average density. And your travel time/mileage can vary by say 5%. I guess thats the whole point of an average hey?

Yep my bad, it a 480 pc diametre and 240 pc radius. Though what they tell you and what you measure is two different things

Okay (have to check to be sure), but if the radius from the CNB is 782 ly and the three boundary stars are all on the outer edge of the map and thus in 2d top down view they should all be 782 ly (or there abouts). 3D obviously makes a big difference for Deneb

And the UFP 'aint a circle anymore, not if there hard up against klingon and Romulan space in 2d at around 900 ly. But these are meant to be 3d 'inspired' maps and if Romulus is at around 300 ly? Perhaps they didn't draw the maps as good as they could've!

At the moment I'm converting the stars and the cordinates from the nav book, correcting for CNB and comparing them to real stars to see whats made up and what is really wrong in the distance department.

------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[This message has been edited by SIR SIG (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Owen E Oulton]

"OK...how does one convert stardates to the Gregorian calendar?"

TOS Stardates don't convert. TNG ones can be roughly converted as follows. Take the first two digits and add 2323 to them. Thus, a Stardate beginning 50XXX is in the year 2373. The next three digits are thousandths of a standard (i.e. Earth) year. Stardate 50500 is approximately the end of June/beginning of July 2373.

In my campaign, I use 3 stardates to equal a ship's day - if 1000 SD equals 365.2425 days, 1 SD = about 8 hours, 45 minutes, and a ship's day is a touch over 26 hours. Your kilometrage may vary.

[SIR SIG]

Originally posted by Penta:
OK...how does one convert stardates to the Gregorian calendar?

Depends on what time

If a modern day version that does sit perfectly with trek then today Jan 30 2001 =
0101.30 but now something needs doing with the new millenium

TOS was just a couple thousand range didgits.

TNG was in the 40000 range, where the first 4 was an arbitrary number the second number was the season (tng) and the last 3 was a d ay in the year where 1-1000 = 365 days (roughly) and 1 day = 2.6 stardates (rough)
eg late 5th season tng would be 45678.2

DS9/Voy just got there numbers carried over to the 50000 range but the season trick doesn't work anymore.

Hope that helps, or at least confuses you more

------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[Penta]

Originally posted by SIR SIG:


Hope that helps, or at least confuses you more

Oh, God...yes, I AM more confused. Why the hell LUG (or Paramount) never explained it is BEYOND me.

[SIR SIG]

Okay: Mentally sets Chi=129.2... for now on in all fed/trek space.

In 2d, that only leaves the Feds expansion room rimward/spinward (SW), coreward/spinward (NW), Coreward (N), and perhaps a little Coreward/trailing (NE).

Perhaps some or cardie space is surrounded (somewhat supported by the DS9 battle maps).

Okay so not a CNB but Sol is the admin centre and suposedly where the alpha/beta border line goes through.

So for simplicity sake 129.2 is the be all, end all average value unless between galactic spiral arms, core of the galaxy, or interstellar space.

So with my tolerance, 129.2 is what you use and the narrator can vary it for plot sake!

With reference to Antares, Deneb and Rigel, it is specifically mentioned that the centre point (read: intersecting line) is where the CNB is. Thus they have to be relatively similar distances (2d anyway) and are also 'displayed' as the boundary stones of the fed exploration zone.

With the star cordinates, it would be good to get the real data they used, extrapolate to a 2d plane and measure off the maps stars, garnish the real star names and compare to modern day data.
I'm suspecting they might have used Gilease 2 c.1967. I've got the data but being machine readable, its hectic to read.

Another nitpick on Deneb: the nav book mentions a SF base (read:StarBase) around Deneb IV and substantial facilities/colony. Now come TNG Deneb seems an outlying star with a little fed contact, freshly being explored fully.
(How do they fit in a major fed colony and explain the Bandi?) In some support there is a pre warp civ on Deneb II, perhaps the Bandi? And somehow the fed colony went AWOL.
Maybe it really is the other star mentioned in script but changed to Deneb, can someone remember it?


------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[Owen E Oulton]

"Another nitpick on Deneb: the nav book mentions a SF base (read:StarBase) around Deneb IV and substantial facilities/colony. Now come TNG Deneb seems an outlying star with a little fed contact, freshly being explored fully. (How do they fit in a major fed colony and explain the Bandi?) In some support there is a pre warp civ on Deneb II, perhaps the Bandi? And somehow the fed colony went AWOL."

Gee, maybe it's because A] the authors of the licensed maps couldn't see nearly a decade into the future to know the details of Encounter at Farpoint, and B] the Trek offices (in this case, TGBOTG himself) do not take licensed products into account when they write their scripts. In other words, when Farpoint was aired, it relegated the Star Trek Maps reference to oblivion.

[SIR SIG]

That was perhaps a bit 'harder' answer then I was expecting, but each unto his own.

I did find the reference I was seeking, the novelization of Encounter at Farpoint puts them at Cygnus IV. And since Deneb is Alpha Cygnus that perhaps is just as misleading.

------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[AlexR]

Originally posted by SIR SIG:
Well it seems just you and me doing the talking here AlexR!

Ahh, the others chime in from time to time.

Well yes I'm happier with 129.2 as chi. So we hold this for all of fed space c. 2271 (TOS). For simplicity sake we might as well keep the same value (129.2) for all of fed territory/explored space in TNG et al. c.2375 over the given distance 8000 ly.

Yup. It's slow enough that we can't get everywhere in a few days, and fast enough that most of the journeys described in Trek still make some degree of sense.

Given that Rigel at app. 900 ly is at or near the Klingon border then 7000 ly needs to be 'found' to get a direct line from Rigel to ? to get and 8000 ly stretch for 2 fed places at there greatest extent.
Tack on Deneb and still there's 4000 ly to 'find'.

I suspect that Federation space, at its greatest extents, has gotten a good distance out. The biggest challenge in finding where to get the distance from is sorting out all the relative locations of the great powers' spaces.

Maybe just put a CNB in Sol system?

Sol wouldn't really be the center, though. It's not the center of Fed space in 2271, and it's almost certainly not going to be the center in 2375, since the Federation's growth is very likely going to be assymetrical.

Right then, were firm on 129.2 for Chi in fed space/explored? Then perhaps outside this area chi could be 12.92 for simplicity!
From TOS to TNG and the maps just moved the decimal point

Not unless we can make a case that Fed space is significantly more dense than the norm for a galactic arm.

I'd pretty much leave 129.2 as the default for the galactic arms. (Obviously it would drop off vastly in the space between the arms.)

With tolerance i'm trying to ask weather the chi value is the exception or the rule. Or in better terms do we say that using chi=129.2 gets you there in average time and average density. And your travel time/mileage can vary by say 5%. I guess thats the whole point of an average hey?

Exactly.

The average says that over that volume of space, the number of spikes and troughs in density, if evened out, would yield that number as a roughly constant value. Leaving the spikes and troughs in is what gives gamers and writers a way to play around with the speeds, if they need to, completely aside from being more realisic, 'cause there's isn't completely uniform density in space, anyway.

Okay (have to check to be sure), but if the radius from the CNB is 782 ly and the three boundary stars are all on the outer edge of the map and thus in 2d top down view they should all be 782 ly (or there abouts). 3D obviously makes a big difference for Deneb

I'm not at all sure that the Maps were intend ed to suggest that those three stars in combination defined that sphere. I had gotten the impression that Rigel defined the sphere, while Deneb was actually well-outside it. (IIRC, and I need to double-check that, the sphere is drawn as broken at Deneb, which may be visual shorthand for "beyond this point".)

And the UFP 'aint a circle anymore, not if there hard up against klingon and Romulan space in 2d at around 900 ly. But these are meant to be 3d 'inspired' maps and if Romulus is at around 300 ly? Perhaps they didn't draw the maps as good as they could've!

Well, the describe the UFP as roughly a "dented sphere" (with the "dents" being the areas with neutral zones and disputed borders), and it could have been at that point in time. It obviously wouldn't stay a sphere, because its growth would be constrained in some directions, and thus it likely grew a lot more on the side away from the Klingons and Rihannsu. Then it ran into Cardassian space, and had to adjust its growth yet again, possibly ending up more in the shape (if not the size) suggested by Christian Ruhl in his maps.

At the moment I'm converting the stars and the cordinates from the nav book, correcting for CNB and comparing them to real stars to see whats made up and what is really wrong in the distance department.

Sounds good. Given the listed uncertainties in actual astronomical references for distances for a number of stars, I'd be interested to see which of the major real stars in the maps fall outside any realm of uncertainty.

Best,
Alex

[AlexR]

Originally posted by SIR SIG:
Okay so not a CNB but Sol is the admin centre and suposedly where the alpha/beta border line goes through.

Sure, but it's fairly safe to conclude that the Alpha/Beta Quadrant border isn't evenly bisecting UFP space, especially in the TNG era.

So for simplicity sake 129.2 is the be all, end all average value unless between galactic spiral arms, core of the galaxy, or interstellar space.

So with my tolerance, 129.2 is what you use and the narrator can vary it for plot sake!

I'm likin' it.

With reference to Antares, Deneb and Rigel, it is specifically mentioned that the centre point (read: intersecting line) is where the CNB is. Thus they have to be relatively similar distances (2d anyway) and are also 'displayed' as the boundary stones of the fed exploration zone.

They at least don't have to be at relatively similar distance in 3-d, though. All they have to be is at great enough angles from each other that a given point can be in the middle of a triangle defined by those stars.

Another nitpick on Deneb: the nav book mentions a SF base (read:StarBase) around Deneb IV and substantial facilities/colony. Now come TNG Deneb seems an outlying star with a little fed contact, freshly being explored fully. (How do they fit in a major fed colony and explain the Bandi?) In some support there is a pre warp civ on Deneb II, perhaps the Bandi? And somehow the fed colony went AWOL.
Maybe it really is the other star mentioned in script but changed to Deneb, can someone remember it?

As noted, the original star name was just Cygnus, and it was later changed to Deneb. This was one of early-TNG's more striking failures of continuity, since the Deneb System had already been established as being a significant known player in TOS and TAS. I imagine that the Bandi may either have been pre-warp during TOS/TAS, or possibly just one of several Denebian races (Diane Duane postulated a startling variety of species in the Deneb System). Farpoint Station was simply a major new construction project...or so Starfleet thought.

Best,
Alex

[SIR SIG]

Some of those star cordinates don't check out.

Sure I can except varying distances but atleast the pos/neg should stay the same. That and the fact they probably didn't use Gliese 2.



------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[SIR SIG]

It actually turns out that there using (outdated) galactic cordinates, off set by the CNB and in parsecs.

So perhaps I can make sense of it after all.

And after a chat on the Farpoint thread, it seems Deneb will be happy at app. 1500 ly as a fed boundary/frontier world with perhaps a small fed colony, in the outskirts of Cardassion space.

------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[Cochrane]

Hey Sig, I'm trying to explain chi to the folks at www.starfleetgames.com . Would you be willing to pop in and help out?

------------------
Games. The Final Product. These are the books of the Star Trek RPG. Their five year license. To explore strange new roles. To breathe new life into get togethers. To boldly play what no fan has played before!

[Paxton]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SIR SIG:
Some of those star cordinates don't check out.

Sure I can except varying distances but atleast the pos/neg should stay the same. That and the fact they probably didn't use Gliese 2.
</font>

Sir Sig, which set of stellar data do you use for your maps and calculations?

Paxton

[SIR SIG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Paxton:
Sir Sig, which set of stellar data do you use for your maps and calculations?

Paxton

</font>

Quite a few. But my main source would be the Hgy? stellar catalogue.

Its a compilation of Gliese 3, Yale Bright Star and Hipparcos.

I can send some links if need be, just email me.



------------------
SIRSIG
AKA: SirPostalot
AKA: The MapMaker
AKA: The Trek Cartographer
AKA:...Well I could keep going forever

[SIR SIG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cochrane:
Hey Sig, I'm trying to explain chi to the folks at www.starfleetgames.com . Would you be willing to pop in and help out?

</font>

How about a better link then just the front page Cochrane



------------------
SIRSIG
AKA: SirPostalot
AKA: The MapMaker
AKA: The Trek Cartographer
AKA:...Well I could keep going forever