Talk:Rigel

Rigel Overpopulation?
There is a mention on the top page about Rigel being heavily populated, but if you listen to Spock in all he really says is it is a densely populated part of the galaxy, then later he says the next star system on the hit list is Rigel, not that it is densely populated. --TOSrules 02:20, Nov 9, 2004 (CET)


 * From an episode transcript:


 * It's veering off, back on course for the next solar system -- the Rigel colony, sir.
 * Evidently programmed to ignore anything as small as a ship beyond a certain radius. We'll maintain a discreet distance and circle back to pick up the captain.
 * You can't let that reach Rigel. Millions will die.
 * I'm aware of the Rigel system's population, Commodore, but we are only one ship.


 * You are correct, the actual dialogue about the "densely populated" area of the galaxy could refer to something else - but the Rigel system mentioned here definitely has a population of "millions". -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 12 Nov 2004 (CET)


 * I've never took the "millions" at face value, because it was said by Decker. Although since Spock did not object the number it is probably at least generally accurate. Could be under a Million or higher. But million is not so much, the Malurian Star system had 4 Billion with 4 pre-inhabited planets. Rigel has Rigel 4,5, and 7 inhabited in TOS alone, plus Federation colonies on 2, and 4 (These colonies do not have warp driven ship BTW). So a million or more is not an excessive number. Really what Spock said about 'the most densely populated part of our galaxy' is basically says that, Rigel is between L-374 and that part of the galaxy. --TOSrules 21:42, Nov 12, 2004 (CET)


 * Well, the note itself is still valid even if "densely populated" refers to something else (although I doubt that). If it is just that phrase you're concerned about, we can simply change it to "inhabited by millions". The point is: There's a Rigel system inhabited by millions and having a colony. Then there's a Rigel system in which the next best thing to visit with your damaged starship is a mining operation consisting of three old men in a desert. Those two simply don't seem to be the same system. -- Cid Highwind 01:14, 13 Nov 2004 (CET)


 * The fact that the Enterprise did not go to one of the other 2 Federation Colonies only says they do not have any warp capable ships. Millions is not to bad a number, with TOS showing 4 inhabited planets (Besides 12), A million is rather spars for population. Although it is speculation, I think the other two colonies were set up for the miners. That way they have a place to evacuate to if things go wrong. It is true Kirk did state that they are far out and the need Starship support, but I think it is more our lack of understanding. Even Colony Beta 6  Needed regular Starship supplies.


 * So I think the million number is hardly in conflict with Kirk's comments in . --TOSrules 01:28, Nov 13, 2004 (CET)


 * Why on Earth would a Federation colony not have warp-capable ships? This seems to me to be somewhat akin to visiting a U.S. State without cars. --Steve 05:31, 13 Nov 2004 (CET)


 * Because they are Colonies, Star Trek takes more of a 16th century sail ship approach, when the globe was still being explored. A colony starts out bare bones, No horse, no boats, just what they need to survive. It works the same for Star Trek, colonies out on the edge need starship support. I've already used Beta 6 as a clear example of that. --TOSrules 05:39, Nov 13, 2004 (CET)


 * You must be using some definition of "clear" previously unknown to me. All we know in that episode is that "Colony Beta 6 wants their supplies" and that Enterprise needs to get there quickly.  How this clearly demonstrates any of your points is quite beyond me. --Steve 05:43, 13 Nov 2004 (CET)


 * Okay how is this, Omicon Ceti III was a new colony, and don't claim they had any space flight capability. Or how about colony From these two examples are the clearest example of colonies that have no space flight capability. Although my point is, since Kirk chose not to go to any of these planets it is likely they have no Warp Flight capability. Or else Kirk could have borrowed Di-Lithium Crystals from there. it does not rule out Sublight ships. --TOSrules 05:55, Nov 13, 2004 (CET)


 * So you're saying that just because you've tabulated a few references to colonies starting off in a simple manner, you've somehow determined this applies to all the colonies ever referenced? I'm sorry to be so highly critical, but that is really speculative, especially when there are numerous episodes that establish that some colonies started off in a highly technical manner, such as terraformers, the SS Mariposa clones and the Genome colony on Moab IV?


 * I'd rather only characterize these colonies based on a canon dialogue reference or some other script- or film-sourced data, since how how they were equipped, founded or populated is largely unknown, and unprovable. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:22, 13 Nov 2004 (CET)

In truth I am not arguing the idea of adding anything to the site, I just think posting the references as an error is premature. All I am doing is pointing out that all the lines do jive if they are not over interpreted. the reference to "most populated" simply can't be pinned as talking about Rigel. I also make a good case that millions is not allot of people for 4 planets being inhabited, more if you included the other series. --TOSrules 07:04, Nov 13, 2004 (CET)

Beta Rigel
We have a section (+REDIRECT) about Beta Rigel in this article. While it seems to be necessary to explain the problems with the far-away "true Rigel", I don't think it is a good idea to spread this explanation to all pages about Rigel planets. In my opinion, all pages should just link to Rigel, and never to Beta Rigel, because both that name and the idea of a second Rigel are non-canon. -- Cid Highwind 13:48, 23 May 2004 (CEST)

Removed from article

 * A good estimate on its distance from Sol based on is about 15-20 light-years. As a conclusion, it is possible that "Rigel" was sometimes refering to "Rigil Kentaurus", another name for Alpha Centauri.

How exactly can "15-20 light-years" be a good estimate, if no distance was mentioned in the episode. And if that figure, for whatever reasons, is a good estimate, how can we conclude that Rigel might refer to Alpha Centauri (distance: ~4.3 lightyears)? IMO, the conjectural distance should not be included at all, the similarity between "Rigel" and "Rigil [Kentaurus]" at least be rephrased... -- Cid Highwind 12:17, 27 Oct 2004 (CEST)


 * Although not canonically established, some assume that another star with a similar-sounding name exists much closer to Sol, thus explaining how the could reach this star at all, or how planets orbiting Rigel could be out-of-reach  and highly populated  at the same time. Possibly, "Rigel" was sometimes refering to "Rigil Kentaurus," another name for Alpha Centauri. However, a hypothetical second Rigel created to cope with those problems is called Beta Rigel in the Star Trek: Star Charts.

This needs to be rewritten or something, especially seeing that it contains such phases as "some assume" supported by "thus explaining". I know there were portions of the above mentioned Star Charts that were seen on screen, perhaps if the portion shown includes "Beta Rigel", then we can eliminate a large portion of the above altogether. --Alan 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cage Menagerie Reference
Pike visited "Rigel 7" before receiving the radio message from Talos IV.

Here is a point: No. 1 stated that "we have no colonies this far out" after the radio message from Talos IV was received. Since the Enterprise was on the way towards Vega after leaving Rigel, we may presume that no Earth (and/or UFP) colonies yet existed in the Rigel system at this time. Rigel was colonized by humans sometime after The Cage but before Doomsday Machine. Or perhaps before the episode with the "three old men in the desert," if Rigel XII is in the same system as Rigel colony. 153.2.246.34 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Distance
I notice that other real world stars are listed white real world distances (see Altair) Rigel is a real star, ( Beta Orion) located some 700-900 light years from Sol. Should this be in the article?

This sentence, I have issues with.
It was part of the constellation Orion.. I feel this is imposing real world information on a fictional star. In the Star Trek universe, Rigel was the name for a star system that was located within 90 light years of Earth. The Klingons knew of a system that they called Rigel, the Vulcans were familiar with the name and had star charts of this system, and Humans used those charts to plot a course to Rigel X. Then we learn later that the farthest that Humans have traveled in 2151 was 90 light years. I am inclined to remove this sentence, but I have a feeling that Pseudohuman will restore the sentence. I am not inclined to get into an editing war. Throwback (talk) 02:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Orion constellation article also mentions Rigel being in it, but doesn't list "Family" as a source there, so I'm not sure what the actual reference is. I'm also inclined to support removal, at least until evidence that the claim is true comes up. 31dot (talk) 02:40, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Orion constellation does appear in the constellation map and Betelgeuse and Bellatrix are at least clearly named, there is what might be a name close to Rigel as well. though you cant make that out from even the hd-resolution. And there appeared to be some behind the scenes discussions about using Rigel way back in "The Cage" and discussions on that it was a real star and quite far away, according to The Making of Star Trek, suggesting the producers intent was to go with the real star name knowing it was a real star. Indicating it was the intention of Gene Roddenberry for it to be the real real-world star, so essentially the only real problem we have is that they ignored the real world distance. so I'm not sure about removing it, since it's a bit ambiguous. Plotting the course to Rigel X might just indicate, Humans didn't know about the planets of the system too. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:56, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen that map. The only thing I can read is the constellation names. There doesn't appear to be star names on the map. I did a thorough run through on that map when I was writing articles for the.


 * Here is the discussion from :


 * ARCHER: Jelik, Sarin, Rigel, Tholia. Anything sound familiar, T'Pol?
 * T'POL: Rigel is a planetary system approximately fifteen light years from our present position.
 * ARCHER: Why the hesitaton?
 * T'POL: According to the navigational logs salvaged from Klaang's ship, Rigel Ten was the last place he stopped before crashing on your planet.
 * ARCHER: Why do I get the feeling you weren't going to share that little piece of information?
 * T'POL: I wasn't authorized to reveal the details of our findings.
 * ARCHER: The next time I learn you're withholding something, you're going to spend the rest of this voyage confined to some very cramped quarters. Understood?
 * TRAVIS: Mayweather.
 * ARCHER: Go into the Vulcan star charts and find a system called Rigel, then set a course for the tenth planet.
 * TRAVIS: Yes, sir.


 * From the :


 * KEYLA: Is that your sun?
 * ARCHER: No, look just below. The yellow one. Do you see it?
 * KEYLA: It's so faint.
 * ARCHER: It's about ninety light years from here.
 * KEYLA: You're a long way from home.
 * ARCHER: Actually, this is the farthest any of my people have ever gone.


 * From the beginning, the Rigel system was not the same as the "true" Rigel. Why would the Enterprise travel hundreds of light years, from Rigel VII, to the Vega Colony to treat their wounded? It would make sense if their Rigel was different from our Rigel. There is a star chart which shows the Rigel system as being close to Vega and Organia. Pollux IV, Vega, Jouret IV, Rigel, Organia.jpg somewhere between Rigel and Vega there is the Talos star group. And I would say the dialog from Two Days and Two Nights is not ambiguous. I think in the episode "Broken Bow" that the writers were making it clear that this isn't the same star as the real world Rigel. Throwback (talk) 04:33, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one still think the only big discrepancy is the real-world distance which was apparently ignored in the case of Rigel. It is nitpicking to make a big deal out of discrepancies between the Star Trek-universe and the real-world. Nit-picking isn't allowed in MA. The real-world distance was never mentioned in any episode. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:55, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not nit-picking. The episodes give us information on which to build the articles on. As an editor, I feel it is my job to stay within the confines of what is given in the episodes and films. To me, these are fictional locations. There is a disclaimer at the end of every movie - This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisIsAWorkOfFiction) I strongly dislike imposing real world information on these fictional locations. I respect that you like to do this, but I feel that you are treating both the real world and the fictional star as the same. They are not the same; it is a coincidence that they share the same name. Throwback (talk) 19:07, September 30, 2012 (UTC)