From an astronomical point of view, the "border" of a solar system is the heliopause, where the solar wind becomes equal to the interstellar medium. For the Sol system, the heliopause is somewhere out past the orbit of Pluto, but we don't know how far exactly. But for galactic law, what would be the territorial limit of a independent star system? Is it double the distance from the outermost planet, for example, or some set distance, like 1 ly or a parsec or 5 ly?
In the sol system, Pluto is 40 AU out, so might the territorial limit be 80 AU? (At wf 8 [old scale], this distance can be crossed in around 90 seconds). Also, 1 ly is about 63,000 AU.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But what about the Oort clouds? Aren't they even further out? Lots of goodies in there, anyone would want to make sure they staked a claim to it all. . .
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The solar systems in Trek could also have clear-cut physical borders, unlike those in the real world -but much like the Trek galaxy has one.
Perhaps each system is encased in a bubble of weird ionization that prevents other systems from listening in on its RF EM emissions, which is why the people in the early 21st century haven't yet discovered any space aliens even in the Trek universe. This might or might not coincide with the real-world "bow shock" at the motionward heliopause.
Such a limit would be nice in that it would be the limit of Prime Directive protection, too. Starships outside the bubble wouldn't attract much attention amidst the natives. "Pirate radios" broadcasting there, or other EM pollution, wouldn't bother the system.
In practice, if the diagram in "Sons of Mogh" was to scale, it looks as if the outermost planetary orbit pretty much defines the territorial space. Weren't the Klingons supposed to lay their mines outside Bajoran space? They were right outside the outermost orbit shown.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
I agree that it should be the limit of the Oort Cloud since it would be a key economic developement area.
But if you make the Economic Exclusion Zone the Oort Clouds, it's possible that two Oort Clouds from two relatively close star systems can overlap.
Heck, ours goes out to about two light years. If you had a star system three light years away they may have overlapping Oort Clouds.
So, in such a case you would treat it like two nations that share a narrow waterway, split the difference between them evenly.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Apparently, the Oort Cloud extends to something like 100,000 AU (about 1.5 lightyears), and could be actually anywhere between 5000 and 100,000 AU from the Sun. Not very strict at all. And they haven't actually been confirmed by anything other than mathematics.
Taking the outermost planet as a limit is bound to give trouble, since there is no firm definition of what a planet is. There are enough reasons to dismiss Pluto as being a planet or, vice versa, to call planetoids like Quaoar planets.
The most utopian way of course is to not claim empty space, and only focus on celestial bodies. It would be clearer, but it isn't workable with nasty Orions pirates and vengeful Klingon captains...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Don't forget that any stars in wide binary system (with stars say, 2 LY apart) would also be affecting the orbits of each other's outer planets due to their gravity. I would doubt that there'd even BE an Oort Cloud in such situations.
Masao, I know I already discussed the heliopause with you, but it's just occurred to me that every instance of a starship entering a star system on the screen has been seen with it approaching planets of some sort or another. That suggests that the "practical" border of a star system would be its outermost planet, whatever that may be.
Hehheh... I've got a monkey wrench to throw into this -- does the star system boundary form an actual sphere at whatever point is the outer edge? Or is it shaped into a disc that fits with the orbits of the planets, so that it would look more like a spiral galaxy in shape? (Maybe that'd finally explain the Mars Defense Perimeter! )
Back to the outermost planet's orbit... a major problem there would be determining what the outermost planet is. These days, we've got disagreements over whether Pluto is actually a planet or not. (I don't think it is, myself.) Also, considering the various examples of astronomical weirdness we've seen over the years, what about outermost planets that happen to have highly irregular orbits?
I think that the heliopause would have to be the only easily definable border that relies on the interaction of a single body with the interstellar medium.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: The most utopian way of course is to not claim empty space, and only focus on celestial bodies. It would be clearer, but it isn't workable with nasty Orions pirates and vengeful Klingon captains...
Heck, they've mentioned "Federation space" and the "Federation border" often enough... I don't think there's any way they could not have interstellar boundaries. As I discussed with Masao over e-mail, if you didn't have interstellar space claimed as Federation territory, the Klingons could've sent an attack fleet to gather just 1 LY away from Sol and be able to claim they're just practicing "war games" or whatever...
Besides, the Federation, while a Utopian organization in vision, clearly must also concede to the realities of the era in which it was formed. Just like today's United Nations must still ultimately concede to the realities of nationalist policies. International borders would be one of those concessions. For defense (against the Romulans, assuming ENT doesn't shaft that idea), if nothing else.
Posted by kmart (Member # 1092) on :
This is the kind of story we might have gotten on TNG if GR and co hadn't alienated some potential writers early on. I remember David Gerrold mentioning (probably in his STARLOG column) some of the folks interested in contributing to TNG back in 87, and one of them was the guy who created THE PAPER CHASE. He wanted to explore some aspects of space law and was anticipating getting to do a Trek or two.
That idea of exploring legalities stuck in my mind (I bet Melinda Snodgrass read it as well, since I remember the column talked about the idea of exploring Data's legal status, and this was before the show was on the air or she had written MEASURE OF A MAN on spec), and when I pitched there in 90 one of my notions was a kind of space version of THE DEFECTION OF SIMAS KUDIRKA, which was a true story done on CBS about a quarter century back, about a Lithuanian sailor on a Russian ship jumping from his ship onto an American ship to defect, but then he found out the only legal way they could accept him required him to be IN THE WATER first! Of course, when he goes back in the water, his people grab him back and he gets hard labor.
It had Alan Arkin and Richard Jordan -- Jordan was the American ship captain who had to follow orders and put Arkin back in the water -- and I remember thinking doing something along these lines for Trek would have been awesome.
Basically I did it as persecuted 'boat people' who are picked up in lifeboats by Enterprise, but the rendezous happens within the system, so technically they were still subjects of the persecuting local authority, and Picard would have to hand them back over even though they'd be killed.
Damn, the more I look back on the stuff I pitched, the more I think Jeri Taylor was smoking some bad shit that day, cuz some of these would have been dynamite shows, even if they only bought the premise.
Posted by Brian Whisenhunt (Member # 1095) on :
Maybe its' like the Neutral zone we see in the simulator in ST2. I believe it was shown as a sphere until they entered and then it became a tube. When we see the E approching a system, it could be that the viewscreen is being magnified to see the most important object coming up, not that that is neccessarily the end point of the system. Afterall, it would only take seconds to travel any clear space leading to the outward planet.
I always thought it was funny that TNG had them going past ALL the planets on the way out.... how often does an alignment like that occur?! Of course the helmsman couldve been doing convoluted trajectories to get that affect like a fly buzzing around
I would think that the boundary would have to be the edge of the solar wind and therefore spherical in nature. If you do a disc approach, what keeps a less than friendly fleet from parking a couple of AU's above your planet and well within the Outer perimeters? And if it is the edge, what about the fluctuations that are going to occur do to solar activity? Maybe everyone just has to have markers denoting territory. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The reality is that the topography of space is, like, really unsuited for territorial limits of any kind.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The trouble with the heliopause/solar wind is that it varies according to conditions of the interstellar medium, the solar wind (size of sun, etc), and the direction of galactic rotation (smaller upstream, bigger downstream). The best estimates of our heliopause seem to be about 90 to 120 AUs, but that's only a guess. As far as the Oort cloud, it's supposed to go out 100,000 (1.5 ly) but I've seen estimates of 3 ly. The Oort cloud would also be perturbed by various galactic forces the same way the heliopause is.
If the legal territorial limits are based on physical variables, generally speaking big stars would have large limits while small stars would have smaller limits. Another thing to consider is the technological power of a star system. A civilization just starting interstellar flight (prewarp) might be happy with a territorial limit out to its heliopause. But a civ with a powerful warp fleet might feel that 5 or 10 light years is better.
Seems to me that the Federation must have some internal agreements on this, but what about neutral powers? If they have no agreement with the Fed or other powers on territorial limits, they'd be free to proclaim an limit they're able to protect. We've seen several times when Fed ships have been told they have crossed into someone's territory when they thought they were in "free space."
This gets us to thinking, like Kmart said, about Galactic law. I wonder if there is something similar to "international law" on earth which is agreed to by the Federation and non-Federation powers?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Perhaps a limit based on the gravitational influence of the star(s) would work. The political entity of the given system could be a locus of all points at which the escape velocity from the star(s) is greater than or equal to some set constant.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian Whisenhunt: Maybe its' like the Neutral zone we see in the simulator in ST2. I believe it was shown as a sphere until they entered and then it became a tube.
Err...nope. You're just seeing the oblate spheroid from the inside.
quote:I always thought it was funny that TNG had them going past ALL the planets on the way out....
When did that happen? In the title scene they leave Earth and go by Jupiter and Saturn. I don't recall ever seeing a grand-tour. Did we ever once see Neptune or the planet-whose-name-cannot-be-uttered-without-the-obvious-"Klingon"-joke-following?
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
What if all systems signing this treaty just agreed to a preset limit, like a sphere with a radius of one light year spreading out from the core of each star in the system? There would be no variable ranges like their would with the Heliopause or an Oort Cloud. And one light year from the core of each star should provide enough Oort Cloud material to satisfy economic rights. In such occasions where the binaries or trinaries are more then 2 LY apart you could have a corridor connecting the two / three.
I think most of the bigger powers would sign this treaty but there would still be disputes if something important were discovered (like the fact that technically, no one is supposed to claim parts of Antarctica but if they found oil there all those early demarcation lines would suddenly become very important again).
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:This gets us to thinking, like Kmart said, about Galactic law. I wonder if there is something similar to "international law" on earth which is agreed to by the Federation and non-Federation powers?
The Klingon ambassador claimed Kirk had violated 'interstellar law' in STVI. Well, actually, I'm not so sure about that. But he did mention 'interstellar law' to the UFP Council President.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'd be hesitant to accept a border that relies on the Oort Cloud... aside from astronomers being uncertain about how far out it really goes, it's also a feature that is made up of thousands or millions of small objects, and would very likely not be consistent at all from system to system. We've already found stars that have planets several times the mass of Jupiter that orbit their primary closer than Mercury does our sun. How would THAT affect a system's Oort Cloud, I wonder? On top of that, what about cometary halo objects that follow an orbit that takes it really far from a star -- so that it crosses in and out of the star system's boundary? That could give rise to some ownership or jurisdiction conflicts, if a comet has just exited or entered a system (or is about to do so).
(This doesn't matter whether or not a system is inhabited/habitable -- there's still mining rights to consider. After all, Nevada is just an uninhabitable wasteland, and yet we still consider it a state. )
At any rate, I think that the interstellar medium is still our best bet. Either that, or a specific distance that's set for all systems regardless of size. Actually, now that I think about it, the set and static boundary sounds like a better bet. It's just occurred to me that the interstellar medium is essentially the gigantic dust clouds in the spiral arms of our galaxy that give it (and all spiral galaxies) their characteristic shape and appearance. As Masao mentioned, the interstellar medium would hardly be constant. It would even be likely to change a little bit as a star goes through cycles in solar flares or even its life cycle of growth and decline. I'd be willing to bet that, should we ever launch a probe powerful enough to quickly reach the edge of the heliopause and actually study it, we'd find some kind of relationship between solar flares and the size/shape of the heliopause.
I'm not up on my terrestrial geology... what's the edge of the continental shelves, approximately? Whatever it is, I'm sure it can't be consistent all over the world, from shoreline to the beginning of the plummet to the sea floor. I'd suggest that the heliopause would be somewhat equivalent to the edge of the continental shelf.
Therefore, a set radius to set the boundary would probably be the best option. Say, one or two light-years. The only potential problem would be multiple-star systems. But probably coincidentally, Trek has often shown binary star systems to be the location of more frequent conflicts -- we could say that's not just (or directly) from the proximity of the two planets, but from the borders between them, as well.
One more idea... concerning the defense boundaries. What if you took the idea of the Exclusive Economic Zone and applied it to defense? The Federation is somewhat unique in the galaxy, in that it's a union of many separate governments rather than a single race that's taking over a whole swath of territory. Since individual planets (systems) would be somewhat equivalent to the states in the US, perhaps this two-light-year limit is the boundary for the star systems, but the Federation claims something larger for "mutual defense and security" or whatever they'd like to call it. Ultimately, it's still space that's unclaimed by any one system, and the Federation as a whole tells any other alien government that they can't have it.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
A lot of good arguments here!
Another thing to consider is that stars of different classes are likely going to have solar systems (if any) of varying sizes. For instance, a superhuge star like Betelgeuse, whose diameter is over 2 AUs, is going to have a gravitational effect on orbiting bodies much farther away than a middle-class star like our sun.
As such, it's possible that the radius of the "territorial bubble" for any star is related to its size. Thus a puny red dwarf like Wolf 359 is gonna have a much smaller territory than a supergiant.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Which brings us to the subject of uninhabited systems. I suppose Wolf 359 is uninhabited, and that it is in 'Federation space'. So what keeps minor annoyances like the Orions from claiming a system like that?
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
minor annoyances? those Orion bastards killed my son!
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I would say that the limit has to be arbitrary - a set distance which bears in mind economic and defensive distances.
If memory serves, the present one for sea-bordered nations is 40 miles. Does anyone know how this was decided upon? Was it based on the time a sailing ship took to cross those 40 miles?
We could then assume that a sililar distance/travel time system was worked out during pre-Federation times (NX-01 can travel wf5).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Another question would be, is an Oort Cloud object really all that valuable? After all, those things are supposed to be nothing more than dirty snowballs, from what I know...
When you consider that, I don't think that a light-year's distance would really be all that necessary.
And something else just occurred to me that would make borders in binary star systems REALLY fun... elliptical orbits!
Let's take Alpha Centauri, our nearest neighbors and probably a reasonable model of a trinary star system in which the two largest stars have an orbital period of about 80 years, and come as close as about 11 AU, but swing as far apart as 35 AU -- which, in the scale of a star system, is not all that close and actually still allows the possibility of Earth-like planets around either of those stars. (Some binary pairs orbit at half an AU or less...)
So, how do you partition these two star subsystems? Would you take each star's heliopause, where it starts running into the solar wind of its companion? Would you take a simple halfway point between the two stars?
Then, of course, there's Proxima. Actually, that's a bit simpler, because Proxima simply orbits the pair's joint center of gravity at about a third of a light-year away. That's plenty distant for a planetary scale, though not enough if you're talking the 1- or 2-light-year interstellar borders, and this unfortunate pair is politically divided. Then you're back to square one.
I won't even THINK about going into quaternary systems like Capella... Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: If memory serves, the present one for sea-bordered nations is 40 miles. Does anyone know how this was decided upon? Was it based on the time a sailing ship took to cross those 40 miles?
Territorial Waters extend to 12 Nautical Miles (22 km) offshore and include all of the airspace above and seabed below.
The idea first originated in the 17'th century as the major seapowers really came into there own. I believe it was just an arbitrary number rather then any measure of speed of a ship in any given time but I'm not sure about that.
Not all nations subscribe to the "Law of the Sea" and some claim much greater territorial waters. A notable example being Libya in the 1986 Gulf of Sidra Incident when Qadaffi claimed the entire Gulf as Libyan territory and drew a "Line of Death" at it's northernmost point. Qadaffi still claims the territory even though naval ships frequently defy his claim.
In response to the earlier question about the size of the continental shelf, it averages 40 miles wide but can vary from zero to up to 930 miles wide.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
Another question would be, is an Oort Cloud object really all that valuable? After all, those things are supposed to be nothing more than dirty snowballs, from what I know... __________________________________________________
Guess it all depends on the tech level of the race in question. The Oort Cloud would make a good refueling point for early vessels stocking up on hydrogen and oxygen for fuel for a deep space mission. __________________________________________________
When you consider that, I don't think that a light-year's distance would really be all that necessary. __________________________________________________
There's also the consideration of whether or not you'd like an enemy species to set up a totally legal reconnaissance array on one of those dirty snowballs to spy on your system. Or to just park a ship there to do the same task. It would be the new version of the Cold War Russian Trawlers. To quote - Earth, Hitler, 1938 via General Chang - "We need breathing room". So I think you've got to have at least a one light year perimeter. __________________________________________________
And something else just occurred to me that would make borders in binary star systems REALLY fun... elliptical orbits!
Let's take Alpha Centauri, our nearest neighbors and probably a reasonable model of a trinary star system in which the two largest stars have an orbital period of about 80 years, and come as close as about 11 AU, but swing as far apart as 35 AU -- which, in the scale of a star system, is not all that close and actually still allows the possibility of Earth-like planets around either of those stars. (Some binary pairs orbit at half an AU or less...)
So, how do you partition these two star subsystems? Would you take each star's heliopause, where it starts running into the solar wind of its companion? Would you take a simple halfway point between the two stars?
Then, of course, there's Proxima. Actually, that's a bit simpler, because Proxima simply orbits the pair's joint center of gravity at about a third of a light-year away. That's plenty distant for a planetary scale, though not enough if you're talking the 1- or 2-light-year interstellar borders, and this unfortunate pair is politically divided. Then you're back to square one.
I won't even THINK about going into quaternary systems like Capella... __________________________________________________
Hmmm, okey dokey. Take the same one light year radius from the stellar core figure I mentioned earlier, then extend it along the entire furthest extent of the stars elliptical orbit (and all the space in between). Do the same for the other stars in the system as well. So the territorial waters would look like a series of flattened easter eggs marking the extent of each stars orbit and any space in between.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Two minor nits I'd just like to throw into the ring...
The common centre of gravity between to co-orbiting bodies is called the barycentre.
And although trinary is now accepted as an alternative, the proper term is ternary. Trinary is as much a made-u[ non-word as "utilise" was back in the day...
--Jonah
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
"The original three-mile limit was the recognized distance from a nation�s shore over which that nation had jurisdiction. This border of international waters or the �high seas� was established because, at the time this international law was established, three miles was the longest range of any nation�s most powerful guns, and therefore, the limit from shore batteries at which they could enforce their laws. (International law and the 1988 Territorial Sea Proclamation established the �high seas� border at the 12-mile limit.)"
"The background to these requests is as follows. Historically, the United States adhered to the rule that the territorial sea extends three nautical miles out.(2) In 1988, however, President Reagan, by proclamation, extended the United States�s territorial sea to a distance of twelve nautical miles. See Proclamation No. 5928 (Dec. 27, 1988): ...authority of the INS to board and search sea vessels suspected of transporting undocumented aliens if such vessels are found within that twelve mile zone."
Other nations followed suit.
I would posit therefore that the original arbitrary SPHERICAL shell of territory would be somewhat similar, and would be based upon either the range or practical range (based upon guidance systems) of missile/torpedo systems). ie: You own what you can defend. It could be quadrupled later - when economic/defensive requirements necessitated.
What is the practical range of a Mark 2 pho-torp?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I have a book here on contemporary "Outer Space Law". Want to to see if there's any comment about how far a nation can currently claim orbital space?
--Jonah
Posted by kmart (Member # 1092) on :
From what I remember of modern space law, there is some abomination called the moon treaty from 1963 or so that seriously impacts any manifest destiny kinds of claims ... same era when by banning nukes in space, they killed NERVA and PROJECT ORION and all the 'get across the solar system in four weeks' nuclear pulse driven systems.
I have a feeling your book would make me very sad and angry (and therefore it is probably filled with all sorts of stuff to inspire some good 'if this goes on' stories.)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
National boundaries extend to the limit of the atmosphere, according to the Outer Space Treaty. IIRC, that's the same 60-mile limit that those X-Prize engineers are trying to break with their private spacecraft contest.
And I seriously doubt that weapons range would have anything to do with territory. After all, the United States has cruise missiles that can go hundreds of miles. Hell, if you consider ICBM's to have "defensive" capabilities, the US should own the entire world. (Not that I endorse that idea, of course.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the limit of the atmosphere..."
That seems like kind of a nonsensical phrase. how did they find the location of the most distant air molecule?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yes, there's not really a physical edge of the atmosphere. But there's a long tradition in spaceflight that has set the sixty or hundred miles above sea level as the top of flyable atmosphere. I have no idea exactly how it was determined, but it's been mentioned plenty of times.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This may be of some help here... It certainly raised some heckles in its time.
Mark
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: This may be of some help here... It certainly raised some heckles in its time.
Mark
Heckles? Or hackles?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Both. For us Canadians, it's a matter of the French exploiting some stupid rule so THEY can proportionately overfish while we couldn't.
Mark
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Like the bloody Spaniards!!! And we have to subsidise the buggers too!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The current distance for Voyager 1 is about 90 AU out. But, as you read the article, they say that the probe isn't quite out of the solar system yet...
quote:n around 2020, Voyager 1 is expected to reach the heliopause at roughly 135 AU. This is where the Sun's influence fades away entirely and interstellar space begins. Astronomers will then get their first chance to measure the magnetic fields and energetic particles of interstellar space.
HOWEVER... if you look at the map image that's provided in the article, you'll notice that the heliopause is not a simple sphere, but rather a teardrop shape that makes me think of the magnetic fields of Earth, and probably has something to do with galactic rotation.
Another problem: the size (and distance) of the boundary of the "termination shock" -- the boundary that Voyager is currently crossing -- is not consistent, but will change based on the intensity of solar activity. Which makes sense -- as solar flares increase in frequency, there's going to be more solar gasses and particles pressing out against the interstellar medium.
At any rate, we now have some solid (albeit approximate) figures for the edge of the solar system. Any new thoughts?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Two random musings:
- Fandom (most notably the Star Fleet Tech Manual and Star Trek Maps) simply claims Federation space is a near-perfect sphere defined in some treaty. This would seem to invalidate the entire solar system boundary thing inside Federation space.
- Any sort of border based on natural phenomena looks to be too cumbersome. It seems no two stars have the same heliopause, Oort belt or whatever. A fixed distance (1 lightyear?) from the center of the star would, IMO, be the most workable.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
A perfect sphere for the Federation's "international" boundaries would be extremely illogical, simply because it take no account for the distributed locations of various non-Federation empires, and the location of friendly powers close to the border. There's ALWAYS some kind of irregular border along regions of contested expansion -- and I'm not sure if any region of Federation space wasn't contested at some point or another, considering how many enemy aliens we've seen over the years.
The only times that a truly "perfect" and straight (or curved consistently) border comes about is when that region has already been pacified and the two sides are on reasonably friendly terms -- like the US and Canada, for instance. The only other condition I can think of is when imperialist powers (Europe in the late 1800's) draw completely arbitrary lines (like in Africa) to divide territories without any regard for local culture or geography.
For the borders of an individual star system, I do think that there's not too much of an issue about boundaries, as long as it's a single star (or all members of a binary, trinary, etc.) system are under control of one governing authority.
The main question, instead, would be the disposition of interstellar space, unclaimed or unexplored star systems, and transit lanes for commerce. And that's more the realm of high politics that can often be settled on a case-by-case basis.
Back to the subject of this thread, I'm not entirely sure I understand what the difference is supposed to be between the "termination shock" -- where the solar wind runs into the interstellar medium -- is supposed to be different from the heliopause. I thought these were basically the same thing? The Slashdot article says that Voyager 1 has crossed the heliopause, while the New Scientist article I linked to first says they're two different things...
EDIT: Well duh, maybe I should read more before I press "reply"... The Wikipedia says that there are two definitions for heliopause -- one's the end of the solar wind, while the other is the limit of the sun's magnetic field.
I'd tend to prefer the solar wind idea, because magnetic fields can go for a really long way...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
That New Scientist graphic is sort of confusing, or maybe it's just me. If both the heliopause and termination shock are based on the solar wind and interstellar medium, wouldn't they be roughly the same shape (if not the same thing)?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, that's what confused me. But it turns out that the New Scientist graphic is defining the heliopause as the boundary of the magnetic field, not the solar wind. And those apparently end at different places.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Trek cosmotorial (cause it's not terra) boundaries... maybe it's just the point that is equidistant between the core of the two stars - so an amoeba like 3d boarder would appear when there are several inhabited star-systems in the vicinity.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
First off, where's Voyager 3-6 and the wormhole that got Voyager 6 on that graphic? (Only kidding).
You've definately got to just choose an arbitrary border perimeter like 1 LY from the stellar core given all of the different shapes and sizes of Heliospheres (Solar Wind and Magnetic Field) and Oort Clouds possible in different stars.
I've got a question. Earth's magnetic field is teardrop shaped because of the effects of solar wind right? So why would the Sun's magnetic field be teardrop shaped? I think they screwed up the graphic and made it teardrop shaped because they knew that's what Earth's MagField looked like but shouldn't the Sun's be roughly spherical since it doesn't experience any such "windblasting"?
I also liked the fact that they used the terms supersonic and subsonic speeds in space. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Tholians just declare wherever their ships are to be "Our territory". It's easier that way.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote: The only times that a truly "perfect" and straight (or curved consistently) border comes about is when that region has already been pacified and the two sides are on reasonably friendly terms -- like the US and Canada, for instance. The only other condition I can think of is when imperialist powers (Europe in the late 1800's) draw completely arbitrary lines (like in Africa) to divide territories without any regard for local culture or geography.
Uh, wasn't the US/Canada border actually forged in bitter war? A similar straight-line solution was created for Korea, because negotiating the minutiae of a more complex border was doomed to fail.
There's also a third case where dirtside boundaries end up being straight lines. Namely, when there's nothing worth squabbling over in the area. Much of Sahara or the Arabian peninsula is divided that way, as is Antarctica. This must have been a factor in the US/Canada border, too.
I could see spatial borders in Trek drawn mainly on the "who cares" criteria, until there is bitter war, after which the "we can't agree so let's do the simple thing" criteria take over. It's unlikely that the space powers would really want to create complex dents in the border in empty space, thereby expanding its surface area, when they already are hard pressed to patrol whatever borders they have.
Come to think of it, has Starfleet ever used the "You are in Federation space, retreat at once" line on anybody else except the Romulans? Has being in UFP space without explicit permission ever been considered a crime?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They were'nt very polite to those Borg fellows either. ...and they "only wished to improve the quality of life".
Territorial bastards.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
^^^ Good point. In the "Trouble with Tribbles" they just let a D-7 sidle on up next to the K-7 station and no questions were ever raised about them being in Federation space. Unless K-7 was some kind of Federation built and run but internationally open station located in neutral territory perhaps?
At least not until later when a Neutral Zone suddenly appeared between Klingon / Federation space in "TWoK" (Which featured the Kobayashi Maru in Gamma Hydra Section (Sector) 5 - previously mentioned as being in Romulan Space). Either Gamma Hydra is really big and crosses both Klingon and Romulan space, the Klingons conquered it from the Romulans some point after TOS, or Starfleet went bargain basement on the computer simulations and just altered one that used to feature the Romulans as adversaries. But that's another topic.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Not really, I think. There are examples of neutral, or even hostile, ships seemingly crossing Federation space:
- Mudd's (illegal) trading with Sirius, Deneb and Motherlode. He was caught, but he seemed to be able to at least travel around quite freely. - Orion pirates apparently could hijack cargo drones, disrupt a Babel conference and have a major base of operations on Farius Prime. - The Klingons waging war on Cardassia.. My 2D mind says they should've crossed Federation space to get there.
In case of the Romulans "Federation space" is of course simply defines as 'anything on this side of the Neutral Zone'. Some neighbours like the First Federation or the Melkotians also have very well defined borders, while other (Tholians, Sheliak) may not.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
In "The Trouble with Tribbles", I think it was part of the Organian treaty that the Empire and the Federation could use eachothers shore facilities near the border.
Hmm.. a thought just occured to me.. Could it be that the "Klingon Neutral Zone" is merely the zone in which the Organian supernatural powers work? That would explain the spheroid shape..
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Back in TOS, there was likely no chance to adequately patrol the expanding Federation and mant shady characters and glowy special effects could be encountered within their borders.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Hmm.. a thought just occured to me.. Could it be that the "Klingon Neutral Zone" is merely the zone in which the Organian supernatural powers work? That would explain the spheroid shape..
You know that's the first explanation I've heard for the spheroid shape that actually makes sense.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Uh, wasn't the US/Canada border actually forged in bitter war?
Nope, we did it nice and friendly, with treaties to stabilise the border along a particular line, trading bits of territory on either side of that line. There were tensions between Canada and the US throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th; Canadian troops conducted recon along the US border as late as the 1920s. The only 'proper' was was the War of 1812, when the US invaded Canada in response to the RN seizing deserters off US ships. The US burned Yory (Now part of Toronto) and then got their rear ends kicked out. The war was a minor theatre for us as we were busy fighting what was basically a world war agains France at the time. But in the end good triumphed and peace was signed, after we had burned Washington and the US realised it could never take us on. Also there were trading considerations (we didn't even bother to blockade New York for most of the war). There was also a rather embarassing incident at New Orleans but we don't talk about that (and it happened after the peace treaty).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Unless K-7 was some kind of Federation built and run but internationally open station located in neutral territory perhaps?"
The Federation has no B5-style bases in operation. It's just not done. B)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
and now the damned Canadians cross the border with impunity.... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Unless K-7 was some kind of Federation built and run but internationally open station located in neutral territory perhaps?"
The Federation has no B5-style bases in operation. It's just not done. B)
Besides, four out of five of those stations were destroyed before they were even occupied. That's worse than Vegas odds.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Unless K-7 was some kind of Federation built and run but internationally open station located in neutral territory perhaps?"
The Federation has no B5-style bases in operation. It's just not done. B)
C'mon, you know you want to see some Federation Star Fury's kick ass.
Straczinsky would argue that DS9 was just the B5 of Trek but I digress. Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: and now the damned Canadians cross the border with impunity....
Unless they are married gay people - our crack anti-terror squads catch them before they can do anything to our trains with men on them. CIA knows all about their weapons of mass man-trains.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Uh, wasn't the US/Canada border actually forged in bitter war? A similar straight-line solution was created for Korea, because negotiating the minutiae of a more complex border was doomed to fail.
Sorry, I should've been more specific. I was referring only to the part of the border from the Great Lakes westward. Wraith is right -- and I did know that the US made three separate attempts to invade Canada during the War of 1812, and each of them got screwed up (usually because the accompanying state militias refused to cross the border).
However, the establishment of the rest of the border wasn't quite as cozy as I was thinking, either. I completely forgot that there were questions about the ownership of the Oregon Country, which included today's states of Washington, Oregon, and parts of Idaho, as well as the entire southern half of British Columbia. Anyone remember the old slogan, "54-40 or fight!" from their grade school history? (Referring to the line of latitude, 54� 40", IIRC. Come to think of it, I don't know why *I* remember that silly slogan from grade school....) Anyway, I vaguely recall reading something about the fact that the US might have picked a fight with Britain and Canada over northern territories if they hadn't attacked Mexico first instead. They only settled the dispute with Britain after they were already fighting Mexico over Texas.
(Gee... launching a preemptive invasion of another country on a very flimsy cause... who'd have thought the US was ever capable of such a thing? )
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: In the "Trouble with Tribbles" they just let a D-7 sidle on up next to the K-7 station and no questions were ever raised about them being in Federation space. Unless K-7 was some kind of Federation built and run but internationally open station located in neutral territory perhaps?
As Harry said, yes, it was the Organian Peace Treaty which guaranteed each side the right to use the other's shore leave facilities. However, I got the impression that DSS K-7 was located in interstellar space, not inside a star system. It could still be that the Klingons were prevented from approaching a Federation star system. Consider that with the extreme tensions, both the Feds and the Klingons would've probably filled in every part along the border with monitoring outposts, automated buoys, and marshaling stations to preserve their tactical advantage against the other side's forces, and to give them prime defensive spots or offensive jump-off points.
For example, the Feds might choose one spot to put up a defensive station because it's smack between a large Klingon colony and one of their own planets, while the Klingons would choose another station nearby because it could serve as a launching point for attacks that are within range of two or three Federation colonies, and so on... Ultimately, you'd get a border that looks just as jagged as the one on Nechayev's map in "Journey's End"!
(Oh, and Timo? The straight line in Korea was actually drawn in 1945 when the US and USSR were deciding which zones of Japanese territory to occupy. So it was originally straight, and then got jagged because the Korean War is still going on today. )
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
DS9 stated (and TOS implied) DS K-7 was basically a rather unimpressive grain storage facility. I guess it could have been just a distribution point for goods to the colonies in that area (Sherman's Planet and initially, Organia itself).
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Anyway, I vaguely recall reading something about the fact that the US might have picked a fight with Britain and Canada over northern territories if they hadn't attacked Mexico first instead. They only settled the dispute with Britain after they were already fighting Mexico over Texas.
Yep, that's right. I think the UK/US had joint sovreignty over Oregan territory (extending north to 54 40) until 1848 (I think). There were various tensions, especially from those advocating manifest destiny, but eventually we just cut it in half.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And so they built K-7 as their last, best hope for peace...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller:
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: and now the damned Canadians cross the border with impunity....
Unless they are married gay people - our crack anti-terror squads catch them before they can do anything to our trains with men on them. CIA knows all about their weapons of mass man-trains.
IDIC.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
IDIP.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond:
I've got a question. Earth's magnetic field is teardrop shaped because of the effects of solar wind right? So why would the Sun's magnetic field be teardrop shaped? I think they screwed up the graphic and made it teardrop shaped because they knew that's what Earth's MagField looked like but shouldn't the Sun's be roughly spherical since it doesn't experience any such "windblasting"?
Sorry to repost this again but I was curious about it. Does anyone know the answer to this or am I just way off base for the cause of the magnetic field being teardrop shaped?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The ME field is sorta teardrop shaped but on both ends away from the poles. Narrow point out. of course.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I would guess because of galactic spin, perhaps?
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
OK, I was doing some research on this and indeed the reasoning behind the teardrop shape of the Sun's Heliosphere is that it trails behind the Sun in the opposite direction of it's travel path through the galaxy.
Earth's magnetic field is a little different, the blasting of the solar wind is more powerful then Earth's velocity so the magnetic field points directly opposite to the side of Earth facing the sun much like a comet's tail.
One interesting thing I learned though is that at the front of the Heliosphere where it interacts with the galactic medium, their is an area of glowing plasma. It used to be only 10 AU's in thickness but now has grown to almost 100 AU's deep. Some have speculated that this increase is responsible for some atmospheric changes not only on Earth but throughout the solar system including the Moon who's once almost non-existent atmosphere is growing gradually (though it's still extremely tenous).
Here's a page discussing the growth of the forward edge of the Sun's Heliosphere, though I believe some of it's doomsday predictions and links to just about every disaster on Earth are a bit farfetched, it is still an interesting read:
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I believe some of it's doomsday predictions and links to just about every disaster on Earth are a bit farfetched, it is still an interesting read:
No shit! They think the heliosphere was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Well the Heliosphere is part of the Axis of Evil. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If only we could sell Bush on that: NASA might get a budget!
We could make something up about aliens living in the sun and....
Naaaa. Not even hollywood would buy that crap.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
We endeavour to build a nucular powered ve-hicle to get them green blooded bastards from the Sun! Who's comin' with me? Bring some sunblock and near beer. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Mr. President, we have an idea there are aliens on Pluto, we think they have weapons of mass destruction and may have used them on their own creatures. Shall we invade?
Is really all it would take.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And of course, the real driving force behind an intervention there rather than in the much bloodier conflict between the Green and the Red Martians on Sol IV would be Pluto's vast deposits of tiberium, right? B)
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"Where are we going?"
"Planet 10!"
"When?"
"Real soon!"
--Jonah
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
No no no, they're not Mars bars, they're *Freedom* bars!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Dang, on a kick are you...
Would the Mars Corporation have to change it's name to Freedom Candies Corporation?
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
Damn straight. You know who eats Mars Bars? Hippies and Communists!
While were at it can we change Uranus to Planet Freedom? It's not that the Uranians have done anything wrong it's just that there planets name sucks.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
and whistlewhips....
I heard that on the radio and the talk radio guy, nor much of anyone else knew what it was.... Any clues???
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hey, isn't Mars called the RED Planet, anyway? Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I bet the Chinese space program is sponsored by Mars then.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: and whistlewhips....
I heard that on the radio and the talk radio guy, nor much of anyone else knew what it was.... Any clues???
No idea. I've never heard that term before. Maybe it's related to whistleblower somehow?
Or it's some kinky referee S&M fetish. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Got me, but Bush is one also.... So it must not be a good thing....
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
I looked Whistlewhip up on Google and got four entries about Fairies from some fantasy story.
Are they calling our manly President a Fairy? Bastards. It's all because of that pretzel choking incident. Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
In 2287, a Klingon Bird of Prey destroyed Voyager 1. The probe was 1073.1 AU from Sol (launched in 1977, speed 3.4615 AU/year).
The probe was 160.6 billion km from Sol (99.9 billion miles.
Seems like a far distance, but it represents a flight time from Sol (at wf9) of 5.66 minutes).
At present, the Maritime Exclusion Zone is 40 miles (64.4 km) - 1 hours steaming time for a Carrier Task force at flank speed.
At wf9, 1 hours flight time is 0.1729 ly - 1.636 trillion km (1.01 trillion miles for Americans and other metric-challenged persons).
I put it to you that the BOP was well within our Territorial Limit - Starfleet and our Sol Defense Force didn't go apeshit because it decloaked, fired and re-cloaked before they could get their spandex-covered asses in gear.
Humans like round numbers (although Vulcans like lots of nice decimal places). The 1 hour flight time/1.363 trillion km (and yes [sigh] nicely rounded 1 trillion mile] exclusion sphere would work out very well. The point after all is to detect a fleet within your zone while giving you plenty of time to warn the enemy off while coordinating and gathering your forces to meet them.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
God I love math.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treknophyle: I put it to you that the BOP was well within our Territorial Limit - Starfleet and our Sol Defense Force didn't go apeshit because it decloaked, fired and re-cloaked before they could get their spandex-covered asses in gear.
Or the probe had fallen through a wormhole, transwarp conduit, or any of the several billion types of anomoly out there that can transport things far distances.
Of course, if you want to believe that a Klingon BOP had just wandered into the Sol system on the off chance that there might be some debris to shoot up, be my guest.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Also, that was one of the Pioneer probes, not a Voyager.
--Jonah
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Peregrinus: Your signature line is entirely apt today (for me). I feel like such a nimnull.
Actually, I didn't think they just happened along near Sol space - I assumed they were a covert data gathering mission.
Although why they'd use a space biker, I dunno.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And if they were on a covert data-gathering mission, would they really be decloaking to shoot "space garbage"? I think ... no.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
boundaries... maybe it's just the point that is equidistant between the core of the two stars - so an amoeba like 3d boarder would appear when there are several inhabited star-systems in the vicinity.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)