Alioth
Regular
I was just reading the Wikipedia article on Minbar, and saw that it stated this planet was supposed to be in the Chi Draconis system, a star system only 25 light years away from Sol. I actually found this when I was reading the article on Chi Draconis, and clicked on the Chi Draconis in fiction link, which stated the same thing. Neither of these gave a citation for this. Is this really the canonical location for Minbar, or did someone just make it up?
The reason I ask kind of goes to a larger issue of the size of our galaxy, and how sometimes it seems B5 makes it seem a lot smaller than it is, which I sort of mentioned in another thread. Remember, Minbar is supposed to be relatively far away from the human sphere of space, so much so that even after being involved with the Dilgar War and many "nonaligned" species, humans had no contact and little knowledge of the Minbari, and from the movie In the Beginning it was implied their space was rather distant from ours. Well, on a galactic scale, where the diameter of the galaxy is 100,000 light years, 25 light years is very, very close. Indeed, humans supposedly colonized the Vega system, a star that is roughly the same distance away (and about 15 light years from Chi Draconis, incidentally). And within a 25-light-year sphere of Sol, there are only a handful of remotely Sunlike stars. Over 100 l.y. away would have been a bit more plausible (although still fairly close on a galactic scale).
Now I never heard any reference to what specific star system any of the worlds of B5 were set in, other than B5 itself which was set in the Epsilon Eridani system (10.5 light years from Sol), and as I said there was no citation given for Chi Draconis/Minbar--and if indeed this isn't canonical the articles in question should be appropriately edited.
But if it is canonical, I guess being heavily into astronomy and aware of the scale of things, it kind of bothers me in much the same way that old Star Trek locations did (only in that case, it was more about them using a lot of giant and supergiant stars, like Rigel, as settings that had indigenous life--which such would not in all likelihood--most stars that would likely have life would be ones that have nothing but a boring catalog number today, not a name, as those go to the brightest visible stars, which are generally, with very few exceptions, far from Sunlike).
I absolutely love the series and the universe created by JMS, obviously, for lots of reasons. But these kinds of inconsistencies with astronomy always bother me a little, because I'm such an astronomy nerd . I hope they're not actually "official".
(And just now I saw that Wiki also has a location for Centauri Prime, in the Zeta Tucanae system (28 light years from Sol, i.e. a bit further than Chi Draconis/Minbar (and in almost the opposite direction), even though the Centauri were supposed to be the closest spacefaring race to Earth). Again though, no citation for this.)
At least Chi Draconis and Zeta Tucanae are somewhat sunlike (late FV stars), although Chi Draconis is a close binary whose habitable zone would be disrupted by the companion. No "Rigel" or "Regulus" here.
The reason I ask kind of goes to a larger issue of the size of our galaxy, and how sometimes it seems B5 makes it seem a lot smaller than it is, which I sort of mentioned in another thread. Remember, Minbar is supposed to be relatively far away from the human sphere of space, so much so that even after being involved with the Dilgar War and many "nonaligned" species, humans had no contact and little knowledge of the Minbari, and from the movie In the Beginning it was implied their space was rather distant from ours. Well, on a galactic scale, where the diameter of the galaxy is 100,000 light years, 25 light years is very, very close. Indeed, humans supposedly colonized the Vega system, a star that is roughly the same distance away (and about 15 light years from Chi Draconis, incidentally). And within a 25-light-year sphere of Sol, there are only a handful of remotely Sunlike stars. Over 100 l.y. away would have been a bit more plausible (although still fairly close on a galactic scale).
Now I never heard any reference to what specific star system any of the worlds of B5 were set in, other than B5 itself which was set in the Epsilon Eridani system (10.5 light years from Sol), and as I said there was no citation given for Chi Draconis/Minbar--and if indeed this isn't canonical the articles in question should be appropriately edited.
But if it is canonical, I guess being heavily into astronomy and aware of the scale of things, it kind of bothers me in much the same way that old Star Trek locations did (only in that case, it was more about them using a lot of giant and supergiant stars, like Rigel, as settings that had indigenous life--which such would not in all likelihood--most stars that would likely have life would be ones that have nothing but a boring catalog number today, not a name, as those go to the brightest visible stars, which are generally, with very few exceptions, far from Sunlike).
I absolutely love the series and the universe created by JMS, obviously, for lots of reasons. But these kinds of inconsistencies with astronomy always bother me a little, because I'm such an astronomy nerd . I hope they're not actually "official".
(And just now I saw that Wiki also has a location for Centauri Prime, in the Zeta Tucanae system (28 light years from Sol, i.e. a bit further than Chi Draconis/Minbar (and in almost the opposite direction), even though the Centauri were supposed to be the closest spacefaring race to Earth). Again though, no citation for this.)
At least Chi Draconis and Zeta Tucanae are somewhat sunlike (late FV stars), although Chi Draconis is a close binary whose habitable zone would be disrupted by the companion. No "Rigel" or "Regulus" here.
Last edited: