tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 16 08:04:37 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Between
>
>Perhaps I am dealing from ignorance, but
>isn't the "mark" in "course 111 mark 14" the same as a decimal
>point?
Well, I don't know what the current ST writers _mean_ when they rattle
off those course headings. However, in the _Star Fleet Technical
Manual_, it is claimed that coordinates (both relative and absolute)
are specifed as "X mark Y" where X is the azimuth and Y the bearing.
Also, a gradient-based cooridinate system is used (so go based "DIV"
and "RAD" on your calculators to "GRA" for once). (The use of grad
coordinates is later contradicted by the Next Gen tech manual, I
think.)
Thus, "0 mark 0" is straight ahead. "0 mark 200" is directly astern.
"+100 mark <anything>" is straight up; "-50 mark 300" is what a
fighter pilot might call "9 o'clock low".
Technically, you throw in a "R <range>" a the end for a complete
specification. Coordinates in the UFP proper are centered on Sol;
Star Base 2 is at "0 mark 133.34 R5pc" if memory serves. (That's "five
parsecs" there in the range.) You wouldn't use the R value in a
course, but one might hear something like "Sensor contact, captain.
Unidentified vessel bearing 20 mark 45 R 10 million kilometers".
In any case, no matter what Franz Joseph Schnaubelt wrote down, I've
never heard the course headings used this way; they just don't parse.
Also, who says the Klingons don't use a completely different system?
In _TMP_ the tactical display on the /'eymar/ (is this a new quoting
convention, btw?) is divided into triangles; maybe Klingons use a
strange triangularly-based coordinate system.
Sorry for the tera'ngan Hol.
'avrIn