Talk: Sol system

Pages moved[]

The following was moved here from Sol. Reason: Sol is an article about the star; a list of its planets should go to (and already exists on) Sol system instead. Further information about a planet, including external links, should be placed on the page about that planet. Also, 'meta'-information ("edits that need to be made...") should not be put in the article itself, please use a talk page instead. -- Cid Highwind 22:18, 14 Jul 2004 (CEST)

edits that need to be made below: tabs which actually show up, inserting the correct numbers of years...
Mercury (Class B) Mercury
Venus Venus
Earth (Class M) Earth
Mars (possibly Class H) Mars
Jupiter Jupiter
Saturn Saturn
Uranus Uranus
Neptune Neptune (whose orbit, along with Pluto's orbit, actually casuses it to become the ninth planet for {insert the correct number of years} out of every {insert the correct number of years} years)
Pluto (Class C) Pluto (Which could actually be considered a part [or "king"?] of the Kuiper Belt)

Number of planets[]

The Sol system have ten planets and not nine. And I wonder how they are going to solve that fact in the Star Trek universe. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.148.161.21.

Since this is incorrect, they have nothing to worry about. Bodies such as Sedna, Quaoar, etc, are not classed as planets, despite being of similar size and diameter to Pluto. Rather, they are planetoids or minor planets, as proscribed by the International Astronomical Union. -- Michael Warren 01:12, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST)

They're not? That's new for me. Do they still count Pluto as a planet? Are any references made to the outer planets in StarTrek? -- Redge 01:24, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST)

actually we are discussing a matter, which has still to be solved by the international astronomical union(iau).in fact, pluto states a Kuiper belt object, just like sedna and quaoar. however, when it was discovered in 1930, nobody was aware that there are hundreds or even thousands of worlds like pluto out in the kuiper belt. so on the one side we have the nostalgic people, counting pluto as a planet, and those how see him just as one of many kuiper belt objects. nevertheless, the iau still considers pluto as a planet, although this might be changed in the following years... --BlueMars 12:20, Aug 1, 2004 (CEST)

Have Pluto, or any of the other bodies, or the number of planets in our system, ever been mentioned in a filmed Trek episode? Whatever is not mentioned, we don't need to take it upon ourselves to expound upon here.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel

Pluto was mentioned in the original series episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday". The Enterprise is leaving the solar system and Sulu says "past Pluto, sir". However, I advocate removing Pluto from this list of planets. Pluto is the oldest of the Kuiper Belt objects...it makes sense that it would be referred to. --Dr. Floyd 20:23, Aug 13, 2005 (EST)

I would suggest, in light of this discussion about Pluto and the recently discovered tenth planet (status still to be determined), that Sulu's comment be interpreted not in suggesting the Enterprise was leaving the system, but rather was entering the Kuiper region. Whether Pluto's status remains or it is "downgraded" to the first Kuiper object, the meaning remains the same. 68.55.161.2 01:54, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Quadrant[]

Strictly speaking, all planets in the Sol system spend half there sol rotation period in the Alpha Quadrant and the rest in the Beta Quadrant, since Sol is on the border. This would put Earth in the Beta Quadrant 6 months out of the year. If not completely added, a note of this should at least be made. Does anyone disagree? -- Redge | Talk 13:49, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Yes me; first the planets don't move on the galactic plane and thus don't spend half of their years in either sector. I also think that considering the big difference between the size of the solar system and one sector it is save to define Sol as belonging to Sector 001 which belongs to the Alpha Quadrant. -- Kobi 17:42, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Me too, for the same reasons. This is something that has never been officially stated, so we shouldn't speculate too much about it... -- Cid Highwind 12:31, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

In all the Quadrant articles, it states the Sol system as the difining line for the Quadrant. Look for yourselves. If it is on the border itself, the border runs through the center of the system: Sol. -- Redge | Talk 14:44, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

then, the Quadrant articles should be changed ^^--Shisma _{Bitte korrigiert mich} 10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in primary cannon has it said that Sol is the dividing line of the quadrants? Honest Question... --Dromlarid57 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Honest answer: probably nowhere. Otherwise, the current texts of this and the quadrant articles wouldn't circumvent this issue - most likely after this discussion, started about 5 years ago, had no positive results - and instead still state that this is the case. -- Cid Highwind 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Links[]

I de-linked most of the moons (besides Luna and the ones mentioned in "The First Duty" and the ones with pages already) as I think these have never been mentioned, and there by don't get pages just for being near-by. This probably falls under the same criteria as why we don't have Hubbel and Mir links. I don't think leaving the mentions on this page is a problem though. But the "59 more..."/"Moons of Jupiter" and so-on links should probably go. - AJHalliwell 09:00, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Tenth Planet[]

A tenth planet has been recently discovered, see this site: Nasa.gov... if anyone's interested. zsingaya 07:24, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"but its official status as a planet remains undetermined." - 2003 UB313 at Wikipedia I suggest we stick with this for now. No doubt IP addresses will be coming here trying to alter this soon... - AJHalliwell 07:29, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought I'd just highlight the story if there are people out there who are interested... I certainly was. I think Star Trek has done well by never mentioning how many planets there are in the Sol system, leaving freedom with discoveries of new ones. zsingaya 07:33, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Article Name[]

Why isn't this under Solar system? Whilst the term, "Sol system" is often used as a representative for ours in Sci-fi, I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned in canon Trek. Justification put forth by some fan writers is that our solar system doesn't have a proper name a la the Alpha Centauri system or the Bajoran system, but our system's actual name is the Solar system. This is derived from the Latin name of our sun (which is Sol) and to refer to systems outside of our own as Solar systems is technically incorrect (even if reasonably common about the Net). That's why you don't the "Bajoran solar system" mentioned - because "solar" refers to our own. - Hayter 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sol" was called that at least on the "Conspiracy" star chart (and I think one of the moons was referenced as "Sol XX YY" once), so the name is a valid one. At least one other star system was referenced as "XXX solar system" in an episode, so "solar system" and "star system" seem to both be valid designations for that. -- Cid Highwind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On reversion[]

For the record, I reverted the removal of Pluto from this article because although it is no longer classified as a planet (even though it is), it is still part of the Sol system. That much is canon, as well. --From Andoria with Love 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're following real-life conventions and classifications, though, we should do it the whole way. If Pluto is "just" a "dwarf planet" now, we shouldn't list it as the ninth planet. What if we just replaced that list with our {{Sol system}} navigation, and placed Pluto on a separate line starting with "Dwarf planets:", there? -- Cid Highwind 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me, I suppose. I still think Pluto's a planet. :P --From Andoria with Love 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That should be alright, as long as we keep Pluto on this page as it is the only one of the dwarf planets that's seen on the illustrations that show the Sol system in the 23rd ("The Changeling") and 24th century ("Cardassians") meaning by then it either is a planet again or is still differentiated from the other dwarf planets (for whatever reason) and is therefore "important" enough to still be depicted on maps of the solar system. --Jörg 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree if Pluto was called a planet in canon. If that is the case, should we not follow canon? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "if". Was it? -- Cid Highwind 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it needs to be checked on. It seems to me that it was not even being considered as part of the discussion based on the comments here, and it should be. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked for references to Pluto in all series and movies. It was referenced in dialogue three times, the first two, "Cease Fire" and Star Trek Generations were already on the page, I added the third one from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" to the article. In none of those name-droppings has Pluto been identified, mentioned or linked to being a planet. From what is said in the episodes/films, it could just as well be a moon or a large asteroid, on the fringe of Earth's solar system. Now that this is cleared up, let the discussions proceed...;-) --Jörg 23:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks its funny that there may be a group of Aliens who saw that famed plaque on the Voyager space probe and are going around looking for a nine planet system and keep on passing us going "No that can't be it, that has eight. That little doo-hickey on the end can't be a planet." – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.158.75.246.

Yes, you are the only one. Especially since the plaque shows a visual image of the planets, complete with orbital paths, and it does not actually call them planets, just things orbiting. The aliens will still see an object in that position. Remember, the fact that Pluto is not called planet does not change the object at all. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a hilarious response. I yield to you. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.158.75.246.

Forum:The Solar System Poster from "Cardassians"[]

Earth solar system poster, Cardassians — collage

As I mentioned before, I recently stumbled upon a poster of the Solar System in Deep Space 9's classroom in the episode "Cardassians". In order to decorate the room, the set decorators used several LCARS displays that were originally created for the school aboard the USS Enterprise-D, including a Periodic table, a table with several alien alphabets and the respective logos, a evolutionary table with some aquatic lifeforms, several images, one depicting the moon and said poster of the solar system. The tables of the elements, alphabets and aquatic lifeforms were specially created for the episode (all feature LCARS elements) but the Solar System Poster looked uncharacteristically "normal". So I google-image-searched a bit and found the poster. The producers simply had bought a current poster of the Solar System somewhere and put it in the episode. I decided to buy the poster, because I found it in a German online-astronomy-shop (here) and then the whole Pluto debate began... Well, the poster arrived today and I'd like your input on how to treat it. The complete poster was seen onscreen (see the collage from "Cardassians" here: File:Earth solar system poster, Cardassians.jpg), though no text was legible. This however hasn't stopped us from including all the names on Dedication plaques and other graphics that we got hold of by means of behind the scenes books etc. in the past.

Now, let me tell you in detail what is depicted on the poster (it's from 1990, by the way) so, should we decide to accept what is seen on the poster, you know what that would entail:

Let's begin with the large black part of the poster. This is a depiction of the orbits of the 9 planets. It also features the orbit of Halley's Comet.

There's some text in the top left corner:

SOLAR SYSTEM

Our Solar System was born nearly five billion years ago out of a cloud of interstellar gas and dust. Gravity caused this nebula to contract and flatten into a spinning disk. Near the center, where the density was greatest, a body formed which was so massive that its internal pressures ignited and sustained a nuclear reaction, creating a star we call the Sun. Elsewhere in the cloud, smaller bodies coalesced and cooled - nine planets, perhaps sixty or more moons, millions of asteroids, and billions of comets.

Within our Milky Way Galaxy, there may be billions of other solar systems.

Above this is a small strip that shows the colour spectrum. This part of the poster depicts the relative distance of planets from the sun using AUs and also mentions how far Alpha Centauri is away from our sun.

To the right of this large black image are 9 smaller images of the planets (real astronomical photos, except for the image of Pluto), an image of the sun and an image of the moon. Each image features the name of the planet, its astronomical symbol and some lines of texts about its discovery, and some noteworthy characteristics (what was known in 1990).

Below this is a huge light blue field of text. It features all known moons of the 9 planets (again, as known in 1990, 60 moons, all identified by name, in this case) and below that is a large table with entries for each of the nine planets, the sun and the moon, featuring distance from sun, lenght of year and day, orbital speed, diameter, mass, volume, density, gravity, escape velocity, temperature, atmosphere, number of satellites, eccentricity of orbit, inclination of equator and oblateness of planet.

Below the large black image of the orbits of the planets are several smaller, bluish graphics. Beginning with the dark blue one on the very left they depict:

The relative orbits, classifying the four inner planets as "rocky midgets", the four outer planets as "gas giants" and Pluto as a "world made mostly of ice"

The image to the right of the preceding one, in a lighter shade of blue, deals with comets, gives a definition of a comet and features the orbits of 7 notable ones.

The image further to the right, in light blue likewise deals with asteroids, again giving a definition of the term and featuring seven notable ones, including Ceres.

To the right of this are two small images. The one on top features a graphic of the orbital inclinations of the nine planets, below that is an image of the Milky Way Galaxy with an arrow pointing at the location of Sol.

Finally, to the right of this is a larger image showing the relative sizes of the planets in comparison to each other and the sun.

Okay, this should be all that is featured. How will we treat this now? --Jörg 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I already said elsewhere, we shouldn't simply assume that this poster is an up-to-date 24th century educational poster, or an LCARS screen that is simply missing LCARS elements... ;) Even ignoring the "Pluto debate" for the moment, this poster seems to contain outdated information, for example the number of moons. This poster is also different from other "background details" that we used, because it is not something specifically created by the production crew for the production. It is simply something bought and taped to the wall, because it looked "good enough". I say, include the cool find in a background info (on Sol system and "Cardassians", probably), but don't use it as a reference to create or change in-universe articles. -- Cid Highwind 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not treat it as a pre-Copernican model would be in a modern classroom?--Woody T. Kirk 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a small update: The exact same poster is also seen in Rain Robinson's office in the Griffith Observatory in "Future's End", set back in 1996, when Pluto was still a planet ;-). --Jörg 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, too bad no one has noticed this. --Alan 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently ordered this poster. It has been updated and changed. Pluto is now recognized as a dwarf planet, though it is still considered a major planet. It's still a great poster.Throwback (talk) 23:34, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

If someone has a link to a legible image of this poster please share it. Using a different version of the poster as reference material is not valid. Please post a link to the original 1990s version of the poster. That image link should be used as a cite for all the notes in the articles. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:56, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Protected[]

Page has been temporarily pretected until Pluto's designation as planet in the Trek universe is resolved. Damn you, IAU. --From Andoria with Love 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

they already have. They wont make a big deal about it in the next movie... and it may be many years till a new series. They mention that Pluto is a planet (in so many words) already, and therefore, it is a planet in trek. IAU has nothing to do with this wiki, unless we want to start pulling phasers and warp engines off the site too because the current science community doesn't recognize them. --6/6 _Subspace 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the previous discussions about this, you would have found out that exactly this is the problem... "They" apparently didn't call Pluto a planet, specifically, at any time. This is what we tried to find out for weeks... :) -- Cid Highwind 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Whats the assumption though? And can we make ANY categorization based on what we see on screen, let alone change the facts because of a change in assumption made AFTER the show was written? the show was written under the assumption the Pluto was and is a planet, and assumed that the audience would know that. The changing scientific climate did not occur in cannon, so the assumptions the writers put on the viewers (us) never change. They never say the sky is blue, its assumed by the audience that Earths sky IS blue. If the real life sky were to change colors, that doesn't mean that it did in the trek universe. My point is, the stories are written with well known constants in mind, and the assumption that they will never change. If those constants change, the universe created doesn't, since it was already writen on the original constant. When you have to make an assumption or judgment on a constant, you go by what the constant was when the fiction was written unless and until it is directly addressed in the story. --6/6 _Subspace 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but none of the points you make here are new, all of this has already been discussed - see Talk:Pluto and the other talk pages linked from there. -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because nine major worlds are shown on Star Trek maps does not mean that they are either the only ones, or that the mindset of the future considers dwarf planets any less planets than primary ones. And of course, as we all know, this is the reason that Roddenberry and the original writers never set anything in the Sol system, because they had no idea what the Viking or Voyager craft, to name two groups, were about to discover, or what path nearby astronomy would take. --ChrisK 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet[]

Where in canon Trek is Pluto called a Dwarf planet? I thought canon meant it had to be in a Trek episode or movie, or seen on a screen or otherwise in one of these. I have read on countless other articles that any real world scientific or other types of data are not canon unless they are seen on screen. Shouldn't they all just be called "planets" until it is otherwise stated in canon trek. I read above but no one ever came to a clear concensus. If we go with calling it a Dwarf planet is okay, does this mean everything scientific is allowed as canon then? Many statistics on planets, namely Mars, were debated also that they weren't canon. 74.204.40.46 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So then, in defense of your arguments, where was it stated in canon that it was a planet? --Alan 07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

History[]

Shouldn't there be a bit of history written in here, while some things have better gone into say, Earth history, or Mars, Luna etc... there could be some info to write in a system page couldn't there? Such as battles that took place in the system, or invasions of the system etc...--Terran Officer 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone ever trying to attack or conquer "the entire system" other than Earth. If there are canonical system wide notes and references then they should be added here of course. All planet specific battles and histories should remain on the planet pages and not be redundantly added here. --Pseudohuman 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Past Tense?[]

Why is the first part of this article written as though the Sol system no longer exists in the trek timeline? This should be rewritten to present tense. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.85.74.

Please review MA:POV for more information, but in short, the vast majority of articles here are written in the past tense. Additionally, the Sol System was destroyed in the alternate future Braxton came from in "Future's End", so there is no guarantee the Sol System exists in the future(beyond TNG/VOY). 31dot (talk) 22:35, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Removed[]

Approximately five billion years ago, the embroyonic Sol system was created from a nebula consisting of interstellar gas and dust. Over time, gravity contracted and thinned this nebula, with the highest density of gases and dust at the center, which internal pressures ignited by process of fusion reaction, resulting in the birth of Sol. The smaller bodies - planets, moons, asteroids, comets - were formed by the coalescence and cooling of the remaining gases and dust. (VOY: "Future's End")

Information is from a poster: The poster in question was available from 1990 to 2006. In 2006, Pluto was demoted. A year later, a new version of the poster appeared. Some on this site feel that data from this updated poster is not valid as it didn't appear in the show. The original poster is out-of-stock and the data that was present on it can't be verified at this time. It was a mistake of mine to do what some felt was inappropriate, so I am removing the offending portions. Sorry.:(Throwback (talk) 08:36, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Image removal[]

I'm inclined to remove this image and its mention in the background notes from the article. There seems to be no source that it actually depicts the sol system, and the planets shown don't obviously correspond to solar system worlds or their order within the system. In addition, the image is posted twice, once in the gallery and once in the Star Charts section, in which it certainly doesn't belong. I wanted to make sure whether there are any objections to this? -- Tadayou16 (talk) 12:27, January 31, 2019 (UTC)