• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is there a 'north' on a star chart?

Rincewind

Philosopher
R
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
8,750
Location
Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Please can somebody advise me about this?

I'm playing around, writing SciFi stories, and it's occurred to me that I've been using star charts as if they're basically the same as terrestrial maps.

So, for example, I'd explain that this star system is west of another star system.

Is this the correct way to describe this positioning?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Would help to have some more information about how the maps are being used. An astronomer on Earth using a star map to find a star in the sky would definitely have north/south East/West distinctions. If it is the Captain of the Enterprise charting a warp jump that could be completely different. North and South might translate to opposite sides of the disk of the galaxy. East and West don't translate so well. You'd probably have clockwise/counterclockwise instead. Also a radial distance from the galactic center would make sense on such a star chart.
 
Thanks!

I'm using it to describe to the reader the relative positions of various star empires/kingdoms/etc. If I ever publish, the book will have a map included, so I'm helping the reader find things!

So, it seems that N/S/E/W are suitable.

Actually, I'm enjoying the research immensely, so I'm unsure if I'll every produce any books! It's more something to keep the brain exercised after retirement!

Thanks again!
 
Rincewind said:
Thanks!

Similar to Discworld!
Click to expand...


It would really depend on the size of the area that you're dealing with. The Inner Sphere is only about 1000 light years in diameter, so toward or away from the galactic core and with or against the galactic spin work on their maps. If you're filling a significant portion of a galaxy, that obviously won't work, since they could be opposite directions.
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
It would really depend on the size of the area that you're dealing with. The Inner Sphere is only about 1000 light years in diameter, so toward or away from the galactic core and with or against the galactic spin work on their maps. If you're filling a significant portion of a galaxy, that obviously won't work, since they could be opposite directions.
Click to expand...

In one of the stories the area is around 300 x 300 x 50 light years. Effectively part of an arm of a spiral galaxy.

So maybe the spin isn't a factor as I'd assume the whole arm is spinning at the same rate as the whole galaxy.

Within the boundaries of my 'sector' I'm also assuming that everything is relatively static.
 
Rincewind said:
Please can somebody advise me about this?

I'm playing around, writing SciFi stories, and it's occurred to me that I've been using star charts as if they're basically the same as terrestrial maps.

So, for example, I'd explain that this star system is west of another star system.

Is this the correct way to describe this positioning?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well for one you need three axes in space.
 
Are you pretending (as most galactic-scale space empire SF does) that everything important is spread out on one plane? There are good reasons for doing that; it's really hard to depict three dimensional star maps on a page, for instance. And you can defend your borders with a ring of outposts, instead of needing a whole sphere of them. (Provided your enemies are honorable and won't cravenly exploit the third dimension.)

The reason spinward/antispinward makes sense as a navigation axis in deep intragalactic space is that, after coreward/rimward, it's the second easiest axis to align yourself on by observation. If you can find the galactic core you've got coreward/rimward, and if you can find the galactic disk and figure out which side of it is "up" you can move at some angle from coreward or rimward that keeps you in the main plane. It's not because the galactic rotation itself is important to navigation.
 
Myriad said:
Are you pretending (as most galactic-scale space empire SF does) that everything important is spread out on one plane? There are good reasons for doing that; it's really hard to depict three dimensional star maps on a page, for instance. And you can defend your borders with a ring of outposts, instead of needing a whole sphere of them. (Provided your enemies are honorable and won't cravenly exploit the third dimension.)

..snip...
Click to expand...

The Z axis is important in the real world, but, as you say, difficult to depict on a printed page. Also most people aren't used to thinking in three dimensions. This was used as a plot point in Wrath of Khan. Khan being a land general thought ony in X & Y maneuvering.
 
Thanks to all of you - plenty of ideas!

I do have a "Z' axis built in - the approximate dimensions of my chunk of space is 300 x 300 x 50 LY - it's flattened like as part of a typical spiral galaxy. So - the 'Z' axis is less important!

And I haven't forgotten the Wrath of Khan - great plot device!

I have spent a lot of time working on populations and what people do as well as armed forces organizations and hardware and building spreadsheet to get Excel to do all the calculations, and only recently moved onto creating star systems. In Excel, of course!
 
Last edited:
I've learned something else from the "theory of relativity" thread - whereas there's a possibility of using North/South in a galactic context, East and West have no place.

So - it's good to be eddikated!!!
 
Rincewind said:
I've learned something else from the "theory of relativity" thread - whereas there's a possibility of using North/South in a galactic context, East and West have no place.

So - it's good to be eddikated!!!
Click to expand...

You of all members, should really be familiar with the terms "hubwards",. "rimwards", "turnwise" and "widdershins".
 
Traveller uses "coreward", "rimward", "spinward", and "trailing". To handle all three dimensions, you just need to define an "up" and "down", perhaps using the positive and negative pole definitions in Wikipedia's article on the pole of astronomical bodies.
For intragalactic coordinates, you could define a zero meridian (perhaps through the capital planet's star), then refer to a location by degrees/grads/radians CCW from meridian, distance from center, and distance above/below the equator of the galaxy.
For intergalactic coordinates, perhaps a polar coordinate from some important planet, as we use Right Ascension, declination, and distance.
 
SkepticScott said:
For intragalactic coordinates, you could define a zero meridian (perhaps through the capital planet's star), then refer to a location by degrees/grads/radians CCW from meridian, distance from center, and distance above/below the equator of the galaxy.
Click to expand...


I remember the Third Doctor saying that Gallifrey was located at "10, 0, 11, 0, 0 by 0, 2 from galactic zero center", but it was obviously just technobabble.
 
Rincewind said:
I've learned something else from the "theory of relativity" thread - whereas there's a possibility of using North/South in a galactic context, East and West have no place.
Click to expand...

So do you plan to define North as antiparallel and South as parallel to the direction of Anisotropic Dark Flow Acceleration?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom