Skip to main content


A thing that's always bothered me about Star Trek:

They always talk about the Alpha quadrant, Delta quadrant, etc. Space is three-dimensional. Shouldn't they be octants?

in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

Space is three dimensional, but the galactic disc is relatively flat. So quadrants are good enough generally.
in reply to Darcy Casselman

@Darcy Casselman Fair enough. There's still the question of where the axes lie, but I mean... we have the same issue with longitude.
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

The North-South axis goes between galactic centre and Earth (for the same reason Greenwich is the prime meridian, one assumes).
in reply to Darcy Casselman

(We don't hear about the Beta Quardrant as much, mostly because the Klingon Empire and Romulan Star Empire take up a big chunk of it and are surprisingly close to Earth).
in reply to Darcy Casselman

@Darcy Casselman I always assumed that meant that Earth was near the border between the two.

Edit: Ah, I guess that's more the case than I realized:


The North-South axis goes between galactic centre and Earth (for the same reason Greenwich is the prime meridian, one assumes).

in reply to Darcy Casselman

@Darcy Casselman I'm surprised Earth had that much power considering how much later they were to warp technology than more or less every other member of the Federation (though that probably wasn't established until after the boundaries were drawn).
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

I like to imagine Vulcans rolling their eyes every time humans start talking about quadrants.
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

They are only talking about our galaxy, the Milky Way. It's more like a disc than a sphere. So I find the quadrant nomenclature satisfactory.

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.