posted
OK, it was stated that Andor and Vulcan are neighboring star systems, correct? It's generally accepted that Vulcan is in the trinary system of 40 Eridani, AKA Omicron 2 Eridani. So using a nifty little Java applet I've found, I've done a little star-surfing. The closest stars to "Vulcan" that aren't actually between us and it are LP 656-38, at 5.6 LY, and Wolf 1450, at 6.6 LY. I don't have much info on 656-38, but Wolf 1450 is a main-sequence star, like ours. However, it's considerably cooler, being a type-M, as opposed to our type-G. Its surface temperature is a bit over half of our sun's. Might this explain the insectoid appearance of the Andorians?
Just random theorization. Let's not even get into the location of Qo'noS.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
Main-sequence M stars are poor choices for inhabited planets. They're cooler, dimmer, and smaller than Sol, which means planets have to be much close to be in the habitable zone... close enough that they'd probably be tidally locked (like the Moon; one side permenantly facing the star). That makes for very high winds, since the temperature difference between always-day and always-night will be extreme.
posted
I'm pretty sure Epsilon Indi is nowhere near being a "neighbor" of 40-Eridani.
Of course, if Andor is not Epsilon Indi, it makes a lot more sense of the TOS line that mentions Epsilon Indi's inhabitants w/o mentioning the Andorians.
But, then, there's also no canonical evidence that Vulcan is at 40-Eridani. The best we've gotten is the 40-Eridani-A shipyard on a dedication plaque.
posted
Epsilon INDI? Um... no. Some maps have marked Epsilon Eridani, but Roddenberry and astronomers agreed that it was too young to have life-supporting planets. The 40-Eridani trinary is far more likely.
Ryan makes a good point. Perhaps, then, it's LP 656-38. Anyone got any good info about that particular star?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Epsilon INDI? Um... no. Some maps have marked Epsilon Eridani, but Roddenberry and astronomers agreed that it was too young to have life-supporting planets. The 40-Eridani trinary is far more likely.
I agree. Luckily, the dwarf stars wouldn't be more than bright points in the sky, so it's acceptable to have missed them in all of the Vulcan scenes we've seen.
Epsilon Indi is supposed to be Andoria's star, not Vulcan's. I don't know enough about it to comment on it's appropriateness. The problem with naming aliens after well-known (read: bright) stars is that they are almost invariably unsuitable for life by virtue of being too young. Unless, of course, we're wrong in our age calculations.
posted
Unfortunately, what we know about Vulcan doesn't really fit any of the closest stars to Earth. If you look at their data, the only one with a star close to the sun's stats is Alpha Centauri. The only other G-type star within a dozen light years is Tau Ceti, and it's less than half as luminous as the sun. 40 Eridani, by the way, is only about a third as luminous as Sol.
quote:Main-sequence M stars are poor choices for inhabited planets. They're cooler, dimmer, and smaller than Sol, which means planets have to be much close to be in the habitable zone... close enough that they'd probably be tidally locked (like the Moon; one side permenantly facing the star). That makes for very high winds, since the temperature difference between always-day and always-night will be extreme.
An additional problem is that visible light isn't the only product of stars; you have to take into account its output across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on the spectral class, you could be baked by infrared or fried by UV even if the visible light level is tolerable.
As for the relative placement between stars, you might want to check out this site:
It's a data site for space based RPG, but the person has done a map, based on the sun, of the stars going out to about 25 l.y. The view is from above, with the galactic center to the top. Gives you a good idea of the directional relationships between the stars. 40 Eridani and Epsilon Indi, BTW, are nowhere near each other.
BTW, here's a thought. the 40 Eridani system (a trinary) is some 16 light years from Earth. Remember Scotty's line at the end of TMP: "We can have you back on Vulcan in four days, Mr. Spock?" They would have had to put the pedal to the metal for that; that works out to wf 11.35 old scale, or 8.9 TNG scale. If they could do that do get home, why were they piddling around at warp 7 to get to V'Ger?
[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Woodside Kid ]
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Who says that the ST galaxy is identical to our galaxy?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I meant that there could be differences between our and the ST milky way. For example: The 40 Eridani system is 16 light years away from Earth in our galaxy but maybe 10 light years in ST, Epsilon Indi could be older in the ST galaxy, etc.
[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I dont see that 16 LY is too far away for Vulcan.
(If a sector is 20 LY/3, then Vulcan could still be in the same sector as Earth, and be 16 LY away or on the egde of a neighboring sector).
[I've just watched 'Amok Time' and it actually says Vulcan is in sector 3. Depending on how the sector system works, that could border sector 1 and be 16 LY away just like the '40 Eridani' theory says]
[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
posted
If there were differences between the two galaxies, than Star Trek would not be science fiction -- it would be fantasy. Science fiction is about extrapolating on the present day knowledge, not changing what everybody knows. We don't know if there are Borg around, but we do know where the stars are.
Which brings up an interesting side issue -- if we're to treat "Enterprise" as science fiction, then we must assume that the Eugenics Wars took place later than 1992 in its timeline -- otherwise, "Enterprise" stops being an extrapolation and becomes a fantasy. That's probably why Arthur C. Clarke kept changing his 2001 universe in the subsequent books, to keep it science fiction. Hmm...maybe Braga actually knows what he's doing...
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Yeah, weve played that game before.. Its just like any piece of fiction, we have to use our suspension of disbelief to believe that events that didnt happen happened.. and to further that, that events that wont happen will happen. The latter is a little more difficult because the fun of extrapolating what might happen is what makes speculative fiction (read: 'science fiction') more involved than conventional fiction. But it makes it harder to maintain the illusion as new knowledge comes to pass. And believing that we live in a similar, but slightly different universe than the one we watch is one way of explaining why its not really happening.
Although i question people who watch a TV show and need their own existence explained to them in the context of the show, rather than people who are more secure and watch the show and try to justify the show in relation to their own existence.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
and i dont think its too far fetched to watch sci-fi based on an alternate version of what we know..
for example, there is a lot of science fiction built around different outcomes of world war II..
I beleive that the Eugenics wars happened in 1992 in the ST universe and i dont live in the ST universe, so they didnt happen here. its not that difficult a concept to grasp
the thrust of enterprise should be that it could originate in our timeline or the ST timeline.. basically, whether or not the eugenics wars happened and evolved to the ENT universe or our universe evolved into the ENT universe, they would both be the same.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic