version 8.0 - October 20th, 2001

Although unfortunately, distances are often concealed or avoided on Star Trek, there are nevertheless quite a lot of known distances. On the one hand, these distances are mentioned directly in the dialogue or displayed on computer screens, but more frequently, indirect figures and allusions are used, which can be transformed into actual distances. In chapter 1.2 of the Star Trek Cartography The Cartographer's tools, you can learn the methods and procedures for determining distances from indirect sources. The following table provides a nearly complete collection of all distances mentioned in the series, movies and official books (altogether 83), listing the starting points, destinations, distances and also the sources and the type of the figure (direct or indirect).

New in version 8: seven entries added, all distances revised and/or specified (now precise up to the third decimal place!), source episodes added/corrected, extensive annotations added.

1. Table of Star Trek distances

Distances in italics: ultra-precise HIPPARCOS figures
DQ=Delta Quadrant, QQ=Gamma Quadrant
* Added in v8.0

2. Annotations

With these distances, we can assume that the colonies of the Federation (with exception of Rigel and Antares) and the "classic" empires of the Romulans and Klingonsare all within 200 ly away from Earth. Lacking of every indication what the distance Earth-Bajor or Earth-Cardassia might be until recently, since the ST:DS9 TM the distances of this "next generation" locations to the core region of the Federation is slightly clearer.

While real stars distances are highly accurate as they are based on the newest data available (from the 1990s HIPPARCOS satellite survey), somehow even revising older information (e.g. the 3200 vs. 1600 light years for the distance Earth - Deneb), all figures calculated from a time / distance / speed given in on screen dialogue must be regarded as conjecture minimum figures, as the light speed equivalents of warp factors (from the TOS/TNG Writer's Guide used by the creative staff of the series, and the official technical manuals) and various warp formulae are semi-canon at best and have been contricted in many episodes, leading to the theory that the true speed of warp factors varies according to locally different properties of space and subspace (expressed with the "Cochrane factor" X) and can be therefore higher than the given values (explaining the incredibly short travel times seen in some episodes).

Distances drawn from maps must be regarded as conjecture as well due to perspective / scale / validity uncertainties.

Locations from ST:TMP such as Betelgeuse or Cait have not been mentioned in dialogue but are strictly taken from background information. It is pretty certain, however, that they indeed exist in the Star Trek universe, as they are stars from the real Galaxy.

To end an old speculation, the real star 40 Eridani-A has never been mentioned in any Trek episode as the Vulcan home sun, including [TOS] Amok Time, even if this episode is often quoted as the source. It first appeared in early fandom publications of the 1970s. The episode Amok Time, however, includes some facts that support this assumption, such as the neighbourhood of Altair. Why do I regard 40 Eridani then still as fully canon? Gene Roddenberry himself "made it official" in 1991, and I don't know how more "canon" you can get. Please refer to the astronomy section of this website's Investigating Trek project for more information on the Vulcan home sun.

With its almost 800 light years distance, the real star Rigel has often been quoted as too far away from Earth to be indeed the central star of the important Star Trek system (mentioned in more than a dozen episodes!). While we had no evidence to really reject Rigel = Beta Orionis in the past, the pilot of the new series "Enterprise", "Broken Bow" clearly establishes that at least the "Rigel" mentioned in this episode, and the associated alien trading colony on the tenth planet, cannot have any relation to the real star for four reasons: 800 light years in 4 days are, even with the "Cochrane factor" justification, too far a stretch, the distance contradicts with the "15 light years from our current position" statement, the good Captain does not know anything about the system when he learns about it (while he should know it if it's the star known to Earth science for two thousand years) and, first and foremost, how should a Klingon source know anything about our Arabic designations for stars? "Rigel" can only be a alien homophone here, and it may be a homophone as well in some of the other mentions, comfortably solving the distance problem plus the improbabilities that a) one star has so many class M planets and b) that Beta Orionis has a planet that has developed intelligent life on its own (impossible given the short life span of super giants).

This compilation uses the 70000 light years / 75000 light years figures for the distance Earth-Ocampa and Bajor-Idran from the DS9:TM simply because the many on screen sources itself are too inconsistent with distances from 60000 to 90000 light years for the Gamma Quadrant terminus of the Bajoran Wormhole in DS9 and alternating distances of 70000 and 75000 light years for Voyager's initial distance to Earth.

In contrast to 40 Eridani/Vulcan, the fandom assignations for Andor and Tellar, Epsilon Indi and 61 Cygni are not included here, as they have never been backed up by any official information or member of the Star Trek staff. On contrary, Epsilon Indi as Andorian home sun is quite unlikely given that this system was mentioned twice in Trek without any hint regarding its alleged prominent inhabitants.

Other possible real star distances that were not included for some reason:

Ceti Alpha V/VI - Most fandom sources conjecture that this is simply the reversed notation of the real star Alpha Ceti (Menkar), but this star's distance to Earth (over 300 light years) is far too large given the course of events shown in Star Trek II. It's true that the too large distances of many other real stars cause problems too, however, I will accept these discrepancies only if we can be sure that it's indeed the real star (when the name is identical or practically identical, such as a wrong genitive form for the constellation).

Delta Vega  - Given that this planet's name includes the proper designation of a real star (Vega = Alpha Lyrae), one could assume that this is a different notation system specifying the number of the planet by greek letters (delta = forth planet). Again, the on screen events forbid this sometimes applied speculation, given that according to the second TOS pilot, this planet must be near the edge of the Galaxy. Because of this uncertainty, similar explanations for Beta Antares and Delta Rana are not accepted here, too.

Alpha Majoris  - It is mere speculation that this TOS planet orbits the real star Alpha Canis Majoris, as it could be Alpha Ursae Majoris as well. The proposed connection is simply too vague. The just as daring explanation of Zetar (= Zeta Reticuli) is rejected for similiar reasons.

Back to the Star Trek Cartography overview

� 1999-2001 by Star Trek Dimension / Webmaster. Last update: October 20th, 2001