Home  Info  Starships  Fleet Yards  Treknology  Episodes  Database  Fandom  Community	New York Streets Set   FAQ   Site Map

FAQ

Personal Questions - Trek Questions - Site Policies - Technical Issues - Copyright - Content - Complaints - Canon

Personal Questions

Q: What is your location and profession?
A: I studied electrical engineering and then got an assignment as a research assistant at the Institute for Semiconductor Electronics, University of Siegen, Germany, for five years. After successfully defending my Ph.D. thesis I am now working as a team leader in analog integrated circuit design in Düsseldorf.

Q: What is your motivation to create this website?
A: A question that deserves a detailed answer. Read the Introduction to EAS.

Q: What is your favorite series, episode, character, starship?
A: My favorite series in TNG, but I like all of Star Trek very much. Actually, Voyager was close to catching up. There are several fantastic episodes which I could watch all day, such as TNG: "Parallels", DS9: "The Way of the Warrior", or VOY: "Distant Origin". My current favorite is VOY: "The Year of Hell". I was always fascinated by Spock, I admire Picard, but the most intriguing character is probably Worf. No surprise - I also like Seven very much because of her unique qualities as an individual. :-D My favorite starship is the Galaxy class.

Q: Are you on ICQ or another messenger service?
A: No. I have already more than enough to do answering e-mails and posting on message boards. Also, I don't want to be distracted when working on the computer. Sorry, you have to contact me by e-mail or leave me a message in the guestbook or at the SCN.

Q: Will you join my RPG or fan club?
A: Sorry, no.

Q: Isn't this long-winded FAQ self-conceited? You may want to tone it down.
A: Anticipating questions is what an FAQ is useful for, and I am actually asked questions like these. You don't have to read the FAQ if you don't want to, but you may save me a lot of trouble if you do. I wonder how many owners of personal sites, who need to work for a living too, spend as much time for answering requests as I do. In my experience most webmasters don't reply to e-mails at all. I will answer every single request, even if the question is trivial or is already covered in this FAQ.

Trek Questions

Q: What is the difference between "Trekkie" and "Trekker"?
A: It would be better if there weren't one. In the early 70s "Trekkies" became a commonly known name for Star Trek fans. But when spoken out by detractors of the show, it gained a humiliating undertone, also because of the similarity of "Trekkie" with "junkie" or "groupie". When someone, who does not know Star Trek, talks about the fans, "Trekkie" very often implicitly stands for the "Comic Book Guy" type - overweight men who are also computer nerds and have lost their grasp of reality. Therefore fans that don't like to be called "Trekkies" any more refer to themselves as "Trekkers". But I don't mind if you call yourself or me a "Trekkie".

Q: Where can I download full episodes?
A: Even though I might find download locations, I wouldn't tell you. My site is on thin ice, and I need to avoid any legal trouble.

Q: Where can I buy discontinued Star Trek model kits?
A: Unfortunately all model kits by AMT/Ertl and Revell/Monogram are out of stock since Paramount suddenly withdrew their licenses to produce models under the brand name "Star Trek" in 1999. The same applies to Galoob Micromachines. The only good chance of finding them is on auction sites, but be warned that kits may cost twice the former shop prices or more, and I'm not even talking of the rare models. The good news is that there more recent Star Trek kits, from completely new and much better moulds by Bandai and by Polar Lights, as well as ready-made (yet a bit toy-like) miniatures by Art Asylum.

Q: Can you tell me who did what in which episode and why?
A: Dammit, Jim, I'm a Trekker, not an encyclopedia. There are fabulous search engines, to start with. And speaking of an Encyclopedia, this is the one book you have to buy if you are full of questions about Star Trek. In addition, there is Memory Alpha, the biggest Trek database to exist.

Q: Can you tell me where to find information about conventions in Central Wyoming, what are the specs of the Premonition class from Armada or where to buy Vulcan ears?
A: No. There are limits to what I can and what I like to find out for you.

Q: Do Starfleet Marines exist?
A: Why is half of the Trek fandom *obsessed* with Starfleet Marines? Canonically, there is no such thing as Starfleet Marines, at least not at the time of TNG. Oh well, there is Colonel West in "Star Trek VI" and there are ground troops with different uniform colors in DS9: "Nor the Battle to the Strong" and "The Siege of AR-558". Based on this evidence it would be far-fetched to conclude that the ground troops must be called "Marines". Why not "Federation Army" or simply "Starfleet Ground Troops"? Moreover Starfleet, as stated several times especially in TNG, is not intended to be a primarily military organization anyway. I don't like if fans in RPGs narrow Trek down to its military aspects. Since few other countries besides the USA have Marines, it is also rather Americentric. Anyone is free to include Marines in his own fiction, but don't insist on them being canon. Finally, the fact that several MACOs (not "Marines") board Enterprise in "The Expanse" doesn't change my opinion. On the contrary, Archer says that Starfleet is not supposed to be primarily military. More about False Canon.

Q: Can you help me? I need to prove that an Imperial Star Destroyer wouldn't stand a chance against a Starfleet Sovereign class. 
A: No way! Never bother me with such childish requests. The two science fiction universes were designed to remain strictly separate. While it is already hard to apply the rules of real-world physics to either of them, the two pieces of fiction are absolutely irreconcilable with each other. You are free to create cross-over fan fiction, but don't expect it to make any sense, much less expect to find any "proof" why your ship should be superior to one of a different universe. And aside from that, I loathe the fanboyish bias of most cross-over fiction that seems to fulfill the only purpose to disparage the other sci-fi universe. You will receive no support whatsoever from me in such an attempt.

Q: What is your opinion on slash fiction?
A: To me as a mainstream guy Star Trek is only enjoyable and meaningful as long as it remains truthful to its foundations (see my above answer pertaining to "vs." discussions). I understand and support the desire to finally get gay characters on the show. It would be only fair after 40 years in which the existence of homosexuality was largely ignored in Star Trek. But fabricating a gay relationship of Kirk and Spock or other established crew members in fan fiction is utterly out of character. With the awkward attempts to find "proof" for homosexuality in random gestures in canon Star Trek being funny at best. I mean no offense to any fans who enjoy reading and writing slash fiction (most of whom are not gay themselves, as I have learned), as long as they understand it as a light-hearted thought experiment and not as a "truth". I have personally chosen not to care about this subculture, which distracts from other issues of Star Trek and whose importance is overrated as I believe.

Q: What do you think about the upcoming feature film "Star Trek"?
A: I don't like the premise of the movie and I am worried by the drive to "update" or "re-imagine" the Enterprise and probably everything else that has been around without the slightest changes for over 40 years. Someone who really respects Star Trek should leave TOS alone and explore a new frontier instead. Abrams and his crew may still surprise me, but I am prepared for the worst. And no, as much as you may disagree with me, I won't discuss the not yet released movie with you.  

Site Policies

Q: What does "Ex Astris Scientia" mean?
A: It is the Latin motto of Starfleet Academy, meaning "From the stars knowledge". The ancient Romans usually did not use verbs in inscriptions, so it would be better supplemented to "Knowledge comes from the stars". If you miss the comma of "Ex Astris, Scientia" as in the official Academy badge, this is one more thing the Romans would have omitted. I have chosen this motto to express the relation between the fiction in Star Trek and real science. You may have noticed that my site logo (upper left corner of this page) is not only reminiscent of a communicator badge, but also represents the title, since the knowledge (Starfleet arrowhead) emerges from a star.

Q: Where did the creators of Trek get the idea for this motto in the first place?
A: There are two theories. "Ex Astris Scientia" might be inspired by the motto of Apollo 13, "Ex Luna, Scientia" - an obvious choice. Another possibility is that it was derived from "Ex Scientia Tridens" ("from knowledge sea power"), which happens to be the motto of the US Naval Academy - another clear parallel.

Q: How large is EAS and how many visitors do you have?
A: Here are the most recent statistics.

Q: How many people are in the team that maintains EAS?
A: EAS is essentially not a group project, but was created by yours truly in over 7000 hours by now - the time watching episodes, hanging around in discussion forums and answering e-mails not even included. However, it wouldn't have been possible without the assistance of countless individuals who have made available images, information and encouragement and who receive due credit on the Acknowledgements page. The Starfleet Museum, as a distinct sub-site, was created by Masao Okazaki, the ASDB is the work of a group of individuals listed on the project's About Us page, and the works in the Fan Fiction section were penned by various people that are far more capable writers than I would be.

Q: I know a lot about Trek and I'm experienced in web design too. How can I join the EAS team?
A: There is no way of "joining" EAS. This is because the static site concept is unsuited for collaborative efforts. Another reason is that I want to be free in the decision what to take care of with priority. I am horrified by the idea of working under permanent deadline pressure in my leisure time, which would be inevitable to achieve anything in a group. I don't expect that from my contributors either. Moreover, you can call me conceited, but I am fond of exerting total control over one of the world's largest Star Trek websites. You can help me as a contributor, you can point out problems or recommend improvements. But be advised that not everything you think of as helpful will fit with the scope of the site or will be practical at all. More on the topic of contributions can be found in the FAQ section on Content.

Q: How can my website become an EAS partner site?
A: My Partner Sites are not just places whose banner I am posting, but websites whose owners I know for a while or even call my friends. So I will decline any partnership request, unless you have an idea so exciting that I want to launch a common project.

Q: I am sure my site fulfills the criteria. Why don't I get your award?
A: The EAE Award is not an award presented on the basis "give me your award and you get mine". It is not intended to increase traffic to this site. There is only one award per month, and I actually review the sites to decide about the winner. Please don't be disappointed if you're not the winner, and please don't apply repeatedly - it won't boost your chances.

Q: Do you give me permission to put up a link to EAS?
A: Of course! However, please acknowledge that I usually can't return the favor, as this would mean linking to thousands of sites that have links to EAS. You may want to add a link to your site yourself using my Add-a-Link feature.

Q: Where are your banners?
A: I'm surprised that people frequently ask where the banners are, although they should be very easy to find. They are here or here. Too many webmasters have chosen a distorted title graphic of EAS as a banner or have created a banner to EAS with strong aliasing or artifacts. I disapprove of that, because a banner should suit the site it points to. Personally, I wouldn't click a graphically challenged banner because I would expect the same from the site. Therefore I advise every webmaster: Take the predefined banners!

Q: Come on! Why don't you exchange links with me?
A: Since EAS is among the top five Trek websites in the world, I am glad if I can help promote other places that would deserve more attention. But to be honest, most of the suggested links are mediocre. I don't want to devalue the dedication any webmaster has invested into his site, but I don't see the point of putting up links to yet another construction site with a few random pictures from the web or yet another RPG desperately looking for a third member. Moreover, in many cases webmasters urged me to show their links at EAS, only to take the site down a few weeks later, so I doubt it could have been that important to them. This is why I have discontinued link submissions for my main links page, and I only add your banner if I feel like that. If your site is not one of the best of its kind, please save yourself and me the nuisance. You can *immediately* add a link to any site using my Add-a-Link feature.

Q: Why have you removed the banner link to my site?
A: If you provide your banner for other webmasters, you ought to make sure that the image URL never changes. I am aware that in many cases it is not the webmaster's fault that banners are not displayed any more on other sites (because many providers disable the possibility of hotlinking). However, please understand that I don't want to have any dead image links at EAS, and I don't feel like searching for the new banner location.

Q: Will you join our banner exchange program? You might earn a few dollars with it.
A: No way. My website is strictly non-commercial and will always stay strictly non-commercial, although significant expenses are necessary to maintain it. I do not post any links to commercial sites, unless they are useful for obtaining fact and pictures. In particular, I oblige myself never to accept any payment for posting anything on my site or for giving away its reputation for commercial purposes. Much less will I agree to a paid banner or pop-up or even ActiveX shit hovering across the content. I hate that like hell on other sites, and I will rather bury the site than put atrocities like that on EAS. I move any sponsoring offers straight into the trash can.

Q: Do you accept donations from visitors?
A: No. I am able and I wish to pay for the expenses myself.

Q: Why have you withdrawn from all webrings?
A: Webring is dead. After Geocities has disabled the display of the webring images hosted by them, I have decided to leave all the webrings I was still a member of.

Q: Would you announce the relaunch of my website or post news of my community on your index page?
A: Sorry, no. This is not a news site, and I only post EAS-related news (and not even all of them). If you have to announce something, please do it on a message board, or head for Trekweb or TrekToday and let their editors decide whether it is important enough.

Q: Is this website available on CD-ROM or DVD?
A: No, because that would be pointless. Please visit the site online, as it thrives on hundreds of weekly updates and improvements.

Q: Do you have a newsletter?
A: No. I think newsletters are an obsolete concept. I never liked them anyway. Please subscribe to my RSS feed instead.

Q: Why don't you answer my e-mail?
A: I generally reply to every request. If you haven't received a reply, one of the following reasons may apply:

1. You attached a huge file and it didn't make it to me. Please try again with a smaller attachment.
2. You attached an unsolicited huge file and I have deleted the message from the server rather than spending hours attempting to download it. Sorry.
3. Your e-mail account didn't work properly and my reply bounced off. I don't have the time to try everything again later. You have to make sure in advance that my message gets through. Sorry.
4. Your e-mail account was configured in some way to recognize either my e-mail address or its subject or even every e-mail of unknown origin as spam. Even when prompted to do so, I will not manually confirm my e-mail address to your spam protection. You need to take care yourself that people can reply. My time wasted, but not my fault.
5. Your message contained a worm-like file (e.g. .exe) or a spam-like subject phrase (especially with "adult" and financial language or ALLCAPS), and my filters have deleted it. Sorry, but not my fault.
6. Your e-mail or my reply was lost out there without reason. Please try again.

To tell the truth, I never hear again of most people who make a big deal of getting their "urgent" questions answered, showing out their starships, using my images, having a link on my site or who even offer me some sort of partnership. I may reconsider my e-mail policy and simply discard messages that seem irrelevant to me - all those which don't help me improve my website but just cause unnecessary work. So please do me a favor and don't waste my time, for instance with inquiries that you could find answered at a magic place called Google. If you contact me, you will notice that I am a kind guy, but I can't serve the Trek community 26 hours per day.

Q: Why are you sending spam mails from your domain(s)?
A: I swear that I have never sent out any spam. Still, you may find "ex-astris-scientia.org" or any other reputable domain name in the header of spam mails as their alleged origin. This is because spammers have configured their SMTP servers to accept any sender e-mail address they enter. The mail header, as the spam victim likely sees it, may pretend that it was sent from my e-mail server at ex-astris-scientia.org. In order to recognize the fraud it would be necessary to enable the display of the complete e-mail header, which hardly anyone does. It goes without saying that this spam practice is utterly criminal and will be punished. I naturally take no responsibility for spam that pretends to have been sent out by me. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no technical possibility to put a stop to such criminal activities except for preventively killing all dumb assholes on this planet. BTW, the amount of spam in my name is enormous. I can tell because every day around 100 feigned mails are rejected by spam protection software and "returned" to my server. And this is only the tip of the iceberg!

F: Das ist ja alles ganz schön. Aber warum nur auf englisch?
A: Als ich Ende 1997 mit der Planung meiner Website begann, schien Deutsch die naheliegende Wahl zu sein. Es gab damals nicht besonders viele Websites zum Thema Star Trek und nur ganz wenige davon auf deutsch, die mehr als nur ein paar Seiten mit Episodenlisten usw. aufwiesen. Auf der anderen Seite kann man nur mit einer englischsprachigen Website internationale Besucher ansprechen. Also müßte die Website zweisprachig sein. Dies gestaltet sich jedoch in der Praxis außerordentlich schwierig. Mit dem bloßen einmaligen Übersetzen des Inhalts - was, wenn es wirklich sinngemäß sein soll, auch schon eine zeitraubende und sehr langweilige Arbeit ist - ist es nämlich nicht getan. Um eine einheitliche Gestaltung und Synchronisation zu gewährleisten, muß jedes geringste tägliche Update doppelt durchgeführt werden. Und um zu wissen, wo man was geändert hat, muß man entweder beim Update ständig zwischen beiden Sprachversionen hin- und herwechseln (nervtötend) oder aber alles haarklein protokollieren (zeitaufwendig). Andernfalls würden beide Versionen nach ein paar Wochen hoffnungslos divergieren, und gerade das ist ja nicht der Sinn der Zweisprachigkeit. Bei sehr vielen und sehr häufigen Änderungen kann ich aus meiner Berufspraxis sagen, daß der Aufwand tatsächlich mehr als doppelt so groß(!) wird wie bei einer einsprachigen Website. Und das, ohne tatsächlich mehr Inhalt zu erzeugen. Ich denke, daß ich mich angesichts des anhaltenden internationalen Interesses (unter 10% aus deutschsprachigen Ländern) für die richtige Sprache entschieden habe. Von Zeit zu Zeit werde ich trotzdem einzelne Artikel auf deutsch verfassen. Ich wünsche allen deutschsprachigen Besuchern noch einen schönen Aufenthalt und stehe natürlich gern für Diskussionen auch auf deutsch zur Verfügung.

Technical Issues

Q: I read you had some trouble with web hosting in the past. I may help you out or recommend a new web host with low charges.
A: If you are running a server of your own or have a dedicated server, that may be an interesting alternative, and if only as a backup solution. I am looking forward to hearing from you. -- If you know a host, then it should be one who gives me a data transfer of 200 gigabytes per month, something that most hosting plans don't allow or charge high extra fees for. Those web hosts who offer "unlimited" traffic usually have clauses that would allow them to throttle sites that take away too much of the server's performance. I will never return to one of them. -- Sometimes it's even much worse than that. Until May 2002, my website was hosted with Strato, a company that unconditionally promised me "unlimited" traffic. When they noticed I had 60 gigabytes, they sent me a letter. But instead of kindly telling me that they were not interested in hosting my site any longer, they bombarded me with untrue accusations that I would have violated their terms of service by posting illegal content. They may get away with their almost criminal methods, but be warned: keep away from Strato and the likes! Read the warning.

Q: Why have you disabled hotlinks?
A: Because the extra traffic costs my money. This site was created for people with an interest in Star Trek to come here and look around. Not as an image repository for ignorant or lazy webmasters. Not for idiots who post "pictures of freaks" (=aliens) on non-Trek message boards. Not for those who think it is okay to leech a huge pic as their message board avatar. I will no longer tolerate any such misuse. From the savings I can invite my girl-friend to a big pizza every month.

Q: Why are some large files hidden in "protected directories"?
A: Since my server's physical bandwidth is generous but not free, precaution against download tools and against "visitor invasions" is advised. If you really need those big files that are available in smaller sizes just as well, please take a few seconds and answer the simple password question.

Q: What software do you use for your web pages?
A: Microsoft Frontpage 2000. The program is efficient and reliable for the administration of a website, for instance when moving documents and links pointing at them. Frontpage 2000 is not state-of-the-art any longer, but convenient despite several problems. I'm still using it because I never change a running system unless it is inevitable. I would need weeks to get accustomed to something new and find workarounds for new bugs.

Q: Why don't you use frames?
A: EAS utilizes SSI (server side includes) to embed standard headers and footers. This works a lot more reliably and conveniently than frames.

Q: Why don't you use Flash, Java, ActiveX or other nifty plug-ins?
A: Brief answer: I don't think I need them and I don't like them anyway. Read a more extensive explanation.

Q: Why don't you have an LCARS style menu?
A: An LCARS style menu would need additional programming efforts and would increase loading times. It would also require to put everything into tables or boxes and would force me to split pages as they get too long. I prefer to focus on the content of the site rather than on a graphical interface. Furthermore, wouldn't it be boring if all Trek sites looked alike?

Q: Six years with the same look. Isn't it time for a more radical site redesign?
A: I'll have to wait for the slave prices to drop until I can do that. Seriously, I already worked several days just to convert a few minor aspects to CSS (such as creating a special class for external links). I would need to edit over 500 pages manually and paragraph-wise and would need to create hundreds of supporting graphics from scratch if I decided to change the whole design. So I hope you bear with me.

Q: Is this site's accessibility optimized?
A: Yes and no. Yes, because I consequently avoid the following mistakes at EAS and all affiliated sites: unreadable font size 1, frames, confusing page structures, JavaScript pseudo-links, links that open new windows, links without conclusive description. No, because I am bound to an editor (Frontpage) that does not create standardized header tags, unless I reworked each page's code manually. Moreover, I have to apologize that there are usually no descriptive ALT tags because these would drastically increase the already colossal effort of embedding and linking around 10,000 images.

Q: I noticed this site isn't W3C compatible at all. What are you going to do about that?
A: Nothing. It has to suffice that the site is being displayed correctly in all major browsers. As long as this is true, W3C is only a huge obstacle for webmasters who maintain more than just a few pathetic pages. -- First of all, with occasional exceptions this site exclusively supports quasi-standard HTML as it existed back in 1998. It always worked flawlessly, so I never felt the need to "upgrade" it to the fashion of the time even if the fashion has become a standard. -- Secondly, this website family has over 700 very long pages with an exceptionally high update frequency. It is categorically out of the question for me to resort to hand coding and individual page validation, much less would I spend months to convert the existing site or take the high risk of buying an expensive new software that supports W3C. I'm not going to be one of the jerks who frequently announce a big relaunch of their site instead of updating the content. -- Thirdly, I doubt that the W3C standard is more than a theoretical quality mark. I have seen validated sites with gaping display errors, and many of them appear different in different browsers. Conversely, my site wouldn't look a tad better if it were W3C validated, it would only cost me a vast amount of time and nerves just to please a few nerds who are interested rather in the source code than in the content. Concerning the present technical merit, all reported layout or display errors on EAS are either beyond my range of influence (browser bugs, connection time-outs or cache problems) or they occur because of my data management (the omnipresent dead links because of incomplete uploads), both of which have nothing to do with coding. Demanding W3C compliance as a "quality proof" from someone who is spending most of his spare time to maintain a free and non-commercial website just for the fun of the subject and not for the purity of the code is impertinent.

Q: Why don't your external links open in a new window?
A: I think any user should decide himself where a link is supposed to open. I detest the attitude of Internet Explorer that (until version 6.0) forced links to go to a non-maximized window, which was a terrible lot of clicking to get them to the proper size and then return to the original window and search the position on the page where one has left. This browsing obstacle must have been devised by a technically challenged Microsoft manager. Since Mozilla has shown how to do it infinitely better with the concept of browser tabs (Mozilla Review), this horrible habit of Internet Explorer has ultimately died. Just use "CTRL+LMB" to open pages in a new tab.

Q: The color scheme of your site is much too dark, there is hardly a contrast to the black background.
A: Unfortunately I am stuck with the color scheme, because not just the HTML colors but also several hundred illustrations would have to be changed. But if it is really all too dark, you may need to adjust your display settings, especially if you have a CRT monitor. In particular, if the dark shade of teal on EAS (RGB 36,60,60) appears to be olive or even brownish, you should adjust the color temperature to 9000K, which is the correct setting for almost all applications.

Q: When I click the thumbnail links to your images, many of them are of poor quality and never larger than my screen.
A: Trust me, I'm presenting all images at the largest practical size, and very rarely I have something better resolved on my hard drive. I almost don't dare to mention it, but if you're running Internet Explorer, maybe you simply need to disable the imbecile image resizing. Go to "Tools --> Internet Options --> Advanced" and clear the checkbox for "Enable Automatic Image Resizing" for a completely new internet experience. Firefox may be equally "forthcoming". Click "Tools --> Options --> Multimedia" and uncheck "Resize large images to fit into the browser window" to see what the pictures really look like.

Q: Should I report dead links or images to you, or other technical problems?
A: Yes please! As perfect as the site may look to me, as flawed it may appear due to server errors or corrupt files on the server, although these are rare problems. If a file exists but is messed up or if it is refusing to load completely, it is most likely a server glitch or a temporary problem with your connection. Please try to reload and do not forget to clear your browser cache. If, however, a file is totally missing even after reloading it may be a link I forgot to modify or an incomplete upload for which I have to apologize. The reason for the latter is that there are sometimes files with old dates among the updates, and I am likely to overlook them when transferring everything to the server via FTP, unless I wrote down every single file name. I hope you bear with me and point out these errors to me. You can best help me if you tell me the missing file name and the URL of the referring page.

Q: I have found a dead link to www.ex-astris-scientia.org/somepage.htm. Hope this helps.
A: Thanks, but it doesn't help if you tell me the link. To fix it, I must know the referring page, not the link. If the broken link is on a site other than EAS, then either the webmaster made a mistake for which I'm not responsible, or it is an outdated link. In contrast to other webmasters I normally never move pages, but it was inevitable in the course of the big redesign of February/March 2006.

Q: Should I report typos or wrong semantics/grammar?
A: No for the first, yes for the latter. I know there are typos on virtually every page. I'm constantly trying to eliminate them myself, which is much easier with my own tools than based on an e-mail notification. On the other hand, I am grateful for any correction of semantics or grammar, as English is not my native language.

Q: You may want to switch from RSS to Atom feeds because they have more options (like including custom code).
A: I currently have to create the RSS feed manually because I also need the equivalent in HTML. Unless I can write a fully-featured script some day that creates both the feed and the HTML fragment for my pages in one step, there is no way that I could offer Atom feeds. I gave up creating an Atom feed after hours of exasperating debugging, because the parsing fails if there is only the slightest weakness in the code, not even definite errors.

Q: What software do you use for your drawings?
A: Micrografx Designer (now owned by Corel). Read my extensive Software Test, which is outdated by now though, as Designer is no longer supported and no true replacement is available.

Q: Which Star Trek fonts are you using for your starships?
A: A variety of fonts can be found at Sector 0-0-1. The ones I use for the TNG ships are called Federation Hull (with outline) and Federation Bold (without outline). The best hull font for TOS starships is called Amarillo USAF and can be purchased at this website. This font looks a lot crispier than similar, yet rather amateurish fonts, even if they were intended for the very purpose to label starships.

Q: I have designed a starship. If I send you a bitmap of it, will it be possible to let your software run over it?
A: No chance. Converting bitmaps to vector graphics will result in a worthless maze of lines. Even the best tool will not recognize what is supposed to be "inside" and "outside", much less create smooth curves.

Q: I have designed a starship. Would you post it in your EAS Fleet Yards section?
A: I'm afraid not. I will only post my own designs. There are some other sites and discussion forums that will accept your designs (see on my links page). If you have a suited suggestion, you can submit your design to the Journal of Applied Treknology.

Q: How did you create those 3D views of the bridges?
A: Actually, I neither created those drawings myself, nor do I know for sure which software has been used. I can only say that it was a 2D illustration program, rather than 3D, because it looks rather "flat". My best guess is Adobe Illustrator, since that is what most people working in that business are using (usually on a Mac, but there is also a Windows version).

Q: Could you give me some advice on 3D starship design?
A: No, for the simple reason that I have not the faintest idea of 3D design. Really. All the 3D models on my site are made by artists whose experience and talent I admire myself. I don't even have a simple program for that, let alone something advanced like Lightwave. If you're looking for 3D design, I can highly recommend SciFi Meshes. This is the place where the experts gather. Once you are there, you will find many examples, tutorials and meshes for download. If you should still have unanswered questions or need some feedback, just sign up for their forums.

Q: Could you design a starship for me?
A: No. I'm neither a design service, nor do I have any time left for it. Creating a small 2D ship from scratch with details takes more than 20 hours. At most I may give you a few hints about using a drawing program and designing starships. Read the tutorial.

Q: Could you scan something for me?
A: No! What do you expect? I don't have enough time for my own ideas, let alone for such services.

Copyright

Q: Where do you get your texts and images?
A: I have written almost 100% of the text at EAS myself. I have taken a few photos (World Tour, Galileo 7, NASM, starship models) and drawn many starships and other graphics myself (20%). The other images are taken from various websites (5%), submitted by visitors (10%), scanned from books (35%) or captured from TV (30%). Submissions are accordingly credited. I don't claim any ownership on graphics that were only altered and not originally created by me. If you like to use some of the scanned images, it would be fair to give me credit though (see next answer for the conditions) - after all it is plenty of work to scan and clean them up for the web. The entire Starfleet Museum, including all text and images, is copyright of Masao Okazaki, unless otherwise noted. The entire content of the ASDB is copyright of the ASDB group. The Journal of Applied Treknology is copyright of the individual designers. The Fan Fiction is copyright of the individual authors.

Q: May I use text or images created by you on my website?
A: Yes. I grant you the right to use parts of my material under these terms:

1. You republish the material in the form of excerpts. I do not approve of reproductions of entire EAS pages. I do not approve of sites that use my layout graphics or otherwise imitate the look of EAS.
2. You give appropriate credit to EAS including a hyperlink. I will agree to a mention on a global credit page if you use single graphics or text passages, but I insist on more clearly visible credits in case of more extensive excerpts.
3. For any content that I am showing by courtesy of a third party, you must ask permission from this original source (i.e. from the designer or author who is credited at EAS). In particular, this applies to the content of the SF Museum, JoAT, ASDB, Fan Fiction and Canon Fodder. Note that in some cases of contributed material special terms of use may apply!
4. I reserve the right to deny or retract my approval if the material appears in an improper context. This may include, but is not restricted to: anti-Star Trek propaganda, promotion of intolerance or illegal activities, disfiguration or distortion of my images (no matter if intentionally or accidentally because of bad image editing), misquoting of my views and findings, commercial exploitation of my intellectual property.

Read also the more comprehensive copyright notice.

Q: May I use text or images created by you in my school project?
A: No objections. And good luck!

Q: May I use some of your starship designs for my fan fiction or RPG?
A: No problem if you give me credit (i.e. link to my site). Yet, I may have objections in case you alter the design or the specs, so you should check back with me.

Q: May I modify images created/scanned by you?
A: Any time, if you adhere to the above conditions. If you wish I can send you the larger and uncompressed original files (if available). But you are required to add a note that you modified the original. As already mentioned, I will not approve of images that look like created by me but are esthetically or technically flawed.

Q: I have found some pictures in the web you might want to post.
A: With a few exceptions (which is whenever I urgently need an image to illustrate an article) I only post images with the explicit consent of the copyright owner or at least the webmaster of the site where I found them. I have thousands of images resting on my hard drive which I don't post because I simply don't remember where they came from. Also, I don't want to create a gallery site like many others, and I have to restrict the traffic of the site. So please don't send me any pictures without being authorized to distribute them, and never send me pictures of unknown origin - unless it is something exciting and new.

Q: May I mirror your site?
A: Generally, yes. But I may reconsider that permission if the additional traffic because of the mirror is rising too high. If you intend to make the mirror available in the WWW, you should ask in advance and let me link to it (so I can use it as an emergency backup).

Q: May I load images directly from your server to display them on my website?
A: Just try it, it won't work. As already mentioned above, I have disabled hotlinking. You have to save all files to your own server. There are only two exceptions, if you display a banner for my site or if you post images for a discussion (not as your avatar!) on the SCN or Flare Forums. I have been too lenient in the past. Considering the many extra gigabytes that I had to pay for because of hotlinking, mostly for inane image posts on message boards I've never heard of, I have revised the policy.

Content

Q: Will you post news about the upcoming Star Trek movie?
A: No. Please go to Trekmovie.com for the latest information about "Star Trek XI". EAS is just not the place for daily news for many good reasons.

Q: Can you tag the site updates more clearly, and provide links to everything you have changed?
A: Even if I don't count in typo correction, I am doing about a dozen small updates every day (like adding or replacing images, adding references, hunting dead external links). I am unable to keep a log of all these changes. Also, I don't want to overburden the main page with loads of puny announcements because then the information about essential features would suffer. This is why the update list focuses on new content and significant changes of existing stuff.

Q: In your gallery you forgot to include a picture of Worf's brother Nikolai, and in your review of "These Are The Voyages" you didn't mention Trip's Frankenstein figure. Also, your episode reviews are way too subjective compared with the rest of your site.
A: Your remarks are appreciated, but please note that this website comprises different sections with different emphases. I certainly make mistakes, but in the particular examples there is neither an omission nor an inconsistency. There is nothing such as an "incomplete gallery", and unless there is an error, I won't take suggestions for reviews. Here are the categories of data at EAS:

Lists strictly organized data; uniform format; intended to be complete; canon accounts & observations; e.g. episode data, quick reference, ship database, timeline
Collections random uncommented data; largely uniform format; never complete; either canon or non-canon; e.g. image galleries, fleet charts, ship yards, fan fiction, links
Analyses subject-specific and rated data; varying format; complete only within a narrow scope; analyzed canon accounts; e.g. inconsistencies, ship articles
Comments subject-specific random data; varying format; incomplete; non-canon and subjective; e.g. "Akiraprise" comment, episode reviews, book & model reviews, reports & interviews
Interactive content data not created by me; spam-filtered and censored where inevitable, e.g. guestbook, add-your-link, poll

Q: Why are your updates coming so slowly? When are you going to continue your article about warp travel? When can we expect the missing episode reviews?
A: I intend to get all these things done some day, but long-term projects may have to wait indefinitely because urgent updates eat up most of my spare time. It doesn't help if I have one or two hours per day for everything when I need months of research for just one big topic like the article on warp propulsion.

Q: How do you decide what you update and when?
A: Generally, what I present is governed by the principle "correctness, originality, completeness" - in descending order. But the real life of website maintenance dictates a slightly different set of criteria. Taking into account new findings and making amendments to facts, conclusions, layout errors, dead links and typos has the highest priority. Dozens of fixes of this kind take place almost every day. They are crucial in my view yet almost unnoticeable and are never announced on the index page. Updates with common projects and visitor suggestions come next if they can be concluded in a realistic time. This all leaves almost no time for bigger projects.

Q: Will you create a database on species, planets, actors, weapons, medical procedures, holodeck programs, etc.?
A: I see some of these suggestions as future options. But note in the previous answer that "completeness" is the least significant of the criteria. It can't be my goal to post every available image or to create complete lists of each and everything ever mentioned. If you are looking for a fairly complete database, Memory Alpha will much better suit your needs.

Q: Will you post some more images or maybe some sound files or videos?
A: It can't be my mission to show every existing media file, not even all that my visitors deem indispensable. The reason is that I must stop the already colossal transfer volume of EAS (that I need to pay for) from rising indefinitely. Hence sounds and clips are totally out of the question. Also, I don't want to re-publish stuff that can be found everywhere in the web. Furthermore, when I scan images myself, in particular the starship images, I sometimes spend an hour per file to clean them up until they are ready for web publishing. I hate noisy low-contrast images, and I rather post few good ones than lots of images of poor quality. If you're looking for more media files, you will find some very good sites on my links page.

Q: Could you create a section about Star Trek games?
A: No. I'm just not qualified to write anything about Trek games. I own like two or three older games, and I play them hardly ever.

Q: Now that Star Trek is gone, are you going to create a site about other science fiction?
A: No. Although I like a few other series outside the Star Trek Universe, I neither know enough of them nor could I take care of them besides Star Trek. And believe it or not, in spite of the demise of Enterprise I have plans for many years worth of updates.

Q: I sent you some information/suggestions weeks ago. Why didn't you include them?
A: I am grateful for any assistance in expanding and updating this site. But unless mistakes need to be corrected or the update takes me just a couple of minutes your suggestions will generally have to wait several weeks or even months. In many cases I won't be able to take it into account at all, because there always are more pressing tasks, because it is not verifiable, because it results in an unrealistic quantity of work or because I can't find the right place or format for it (in the above five categories of data). Please acknowledge that this is no official or commercial website. It is maintained by me in my scarce spare time and not funded by anyone else. Still, it is totally free for everyone. I feel no obligation to fulfill any visitor suggestion brought forth. -- And one last thing: If you don't receive a negative reply from me, it still doesn't mean that I will take care of your suggestions. In many cases additional research is required from my part before I can decide anything, so you will get a response like "I will look into it". This neither implies that I will eventually decide in favor of your suggestion, nor that I will ever send a negative notification if I should discard it.

Q: May I ask you to remove from the site the pictures (or the text) that I sent to you?
A: Sorry, I never remove anything. I will not take the double trouble of first preparing your stuff and then removing it, which usually involves fixing many links and, moreover, explaining to other people why it is gone. So you have to consider any permission you grant to EAS as irrevocable. I will only make an exception in case of a copyright dispute or if I deem it useful too (for instance, if it contained substantial errors).

Q: Why don't you have anything about the Bonecracker Heavy Attack Cruiser and the Starfleet Special Strike Force?
A: No way. My site takes into account canon information only. No novels. No games. No RPG stuff. All non-canon stuff made by me and other fans (starship designs, fan fiction) is strictly separated from canon facts on my site. I strongly recommend reading the paragraph on canon further down this page (although I made up the particular examples in the question in order not to offend anyone).

Q: I looked through your ship database, but Riker's U.S.S. Titan NCC-80102 of the Luna class is missing.
A: It's not there because it is non-canon.

Q: I can point you to detailed schematics of the Enterprise-J for your database.
A: Thanks, but I won't show them because we could see too little of that ship to make out more than a coarse shape. Everything detailed would be way too much speculation for EAS.

Q: Please send me bigger orthographic views of the Scimitar and of the D5, of which you show just thumbnails on your site.
A: If I got my hands on any of these, be assured that I would show them at EAS the very same day. You are mistaken if you think that bigger side views must exist because there are thumbnails. The latter are just placeholders and not smaller versions of images with the necessary level of detail. Please read about the Structure of the Starship Database.

Q: Why do you have so few definite figures on your site, for instance about weapons power?
A: As sad as it is, especially power and energy figures from dialogues and reference books are subject to vary considerably. Sometimes power and energy are even confused with each other. If we also take visual evidence into account, the figures will make even less sense. The dilemma is that with this contradictory evidence we can't tell how strong a phaser beam or photon torpedo actually is, neither in the fictional universe nor in the real world. Here and here are a few general considerations.

Q: The length of the Negh'Var class on your site is wrong. It should be 685m, and not 682m.
A: Different sources may give differing numbers. But aside from that, do you really think that a difference of 3m (0.4%) makes it "wrong"? It may surprise that I, as an engineer, am not that pedantic. There are cases in which higher accuracy is required, but starship lengths are not among them. To me as an engineer, 685m equals 682m, unless I were to design a close-fitting temperature-compensated hood for the ship.

Q: I have some additional canon information about starship designs. Will you include them to your ship list?
A: I'm always curious, please mail it to me. It would be fine if you could tell me your source of information too. Sometimes there are rumors and fanon going around in the web, and too many people just post them and thereby further promote them.

Q: I have found many more inconsistencies. Will you add them to your inconsistencies pages?
A: I'm mainly interested in general inconsistencies rather than errors that occur during the shooting. So if you have suited suggestions, they are always appreciated.

Q: You give away all the essential plot information about recent episodes. Why are there no spoiler warnings?
A: The whole site is a spoiler and it wouldn't be possible otherwise. If you don't want to be spoiled you can read hardly anything of it anyway. Even if the rest of the site didn't reveal very much, I don't feel like marking episode reviews with spoiler warnings. To see spoiler-free summaries you should rather head over to TrekToday.

Q: Your links page is fine, but it doesn't refer me to the exact stuff I'm looking for on other sites. You may consider putting more direct links to similar topics on other sites into your articles.
A: No, because of extremely bad experience with that. As much as I myself would like to provide more context-related external links in my articles, it is a bottomless pit. Links to external sub-pages have a half-life of no more than a couple of months. While it is already bothersome when websites go offline or switch to another server, webmasters who keep moving around their files and directories on the same server are a pain of the ass even if it is not their intention. And visitors who complain to me about other sites being down because they don't notice that they have clicked on something that is beyond my responsibility are even more annoying.

Q: What are the Star Trek Fact Files?
A: The Star Trek Fact Files used to be a weekly publication in Europe and Australia. I know of a German version in Germany and an English version in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The Fact Files contain sections with general and planet information, Starfleet (ships), alien ships, characters, equipment, episode guide and an A-Z encyclopedia. The mere facts are essentially identical to the Star Trek Encyclopedias, but there are many more images in the Fact Files and some exclusive schematics. One point of criticism is that the Fact Files are written on a completely fictional level like for a 24th century reader. Hence, there is not the slightest background information on actors, production history, production crew, props or visual effects. The Fact Files were first released in 1998 and were discontinued in late 2002. More recently a revised and updated version of the Fact Files has been released in Japan. Read the complete review and see the sources for order information.

Q: What is Star Trek: The Magazine?
A: It was a monthly official magazine only available in North America with various information on all aspects of Star Trek in the form of articles, including a good deal of behind-the-scenes information, like interviews with actors and "making ofs". Star Trek: The Magazine is still rather expensive, but has more content for its price than the Fact Files. The magazine has been discontinued. Read the complete review and see the sources for order information.

Q: What is Star Trek Mechanics?
A: It iss a book/magazine series in Japan. I only have #4, which features countless studio model images, almost all of which you can find in my starship gallery. See the sources for order information.

Complaints

Q: You are habitually bitching that Star Trek, and especially Enterprise, is too American. Did it ever occur to you that it's an American show, produced for American viewers?
A: That's just not the point. Star Trek was laid out by Gene Roddenberry as a vision of humanity's future as a whole, but is lacking cultural diversity like most other American TV series. I concede that having human characters from more different countries may have become distracting. But even when devising people, places or customs of marginal significance, the authors usually took them from the Hollywood version of an atlas or a phone book. There is clear evidence in the form of the names they have given human characters in the past, without any necessity to make more than two thirds of them Americans or Brits. Still, even Roddenberry himself took a lesson when he believed that the Pravda had complained that there was no Russian character on TOS. He let Pavel Chekov join the crew in the second season. 20 years later TNG became decidedly multi-cultural with its diverse crew. -- Alas, Voyager and ultimately Enterprise has become a series about Anglo-Americans in space that shows other nationals, if any, in roles less important than aliens-of-the-week. Enterprise has five human characters, of whom one is American of Japanese descent, three are undeniably American and one is British. The non-regular characters are exclusively intended to be Americans. Where on Earth are the representatives of the rest of Earth on a mission to introduce humanity to the galaxy? As for the typically American customs, I can agree if a character like Tom Paris, as someone whose hobby is the culture of the 20th century, is interested in specifically American things. But everyone else seems to be fond of American food, drinks, sports, hobbies, music, literature, sayings, holidays likewise, with only infrequent references to what is customary elsewhere on Earth. I'm not complaining that it wouldn't be realistic if American culture ruled the planet. It's just not a desirable future, at least not for me and other people with cultural environments that are ignored and maybe not even supposed to exist in Star Trek. Much less would this comply with Roddenberry's ideals.

Q: Why are you so keen on proving that Enterprise is bad and violates continuity on every occasion?
A: I think that I have always given the series a fair chance - at least as much as I have tolerated Voyager's errors too. There are many aspects I like about Enterprise, and a couple that I dislike. Those who reproach me with being unfair should take into consideration how it has become a fashion to bash Voyager long before Enterprise's launch, and how Voyager fans -like me- feel about that. It was never my intention to "take revenge". On the contrary, at latest with the 4th season Enterprise has exceeded my expectations of a good Trek series, something that is reflected in my reviews. But I reserve the right to choose myself how I deal with continuity concerns at EAS. For instance, I will not bother finding apologies why the "Akiraprise" looks like it does, why we habitually see technology that shouldn't yet exist or races that shouldn't yet be known in the 22nd century. I am aware many fans are trying exactly that, but I don't feel like making up twisted theories to excuse producers who have deliberately chosen to act against their own premise. I may put up with one inconsistency in a while, but a chain of unlikely events or an effortless time travel explanation is something that I refuse to believe in. I'm not even saying that there are more errors in Enterprise than ever before. It is just that, unlike in previous series where they averaged out, they all point into the same direction (read the next answer).

Q: You are opposed to Enterprise only because it doesn't follow your version of history.
A: I have always accepted that TPTB are determining what is happening in the show, and I have always changed my views whenever new facts became available - probably more often than any other fan who is maintaining a website! Those who claim that I want to impose my view of history on others have absolutely no idea of this site which is *strictly* based on canon facts and not on conjecture from my part. Don't confuse the canon-based EAS with the fan fiction in the Starfleet Museum! -- The true reason for my criticism, at least of the first three seasons, is that TPTB didn't stick to *their own* premise and *their own* established Trek history. It was them who fleshed out a prequel, a type of series where it was not advisable to carry out everything the writers may come up with. Their intention was to present us a different Star Trek. But instead of that they repeatedly fell back to the hackneyed Trek clichés of the 24th century (the "Akiraprise" look, fast and reliable transporters, real-time subspace communication, holodecks, cloaking, phase pistols that work exactly like phasers, photon torpedoes, K't'ingas, shapeshifters, Ferengi, Borg, etc.), even if this strained credibility to the extreme. Everything functioned essentially the same way as in the 24th century. Even if we are not strict about continuity, there was only half-hearted (retro-) development. The extent of plot recycling had become alarming in the second season. Only the sets looked different and the Vulcans were now the evil guys. I like a couple of episodes, but in many cases continuity was thrown overboard only due to a lack of better ideas or for the sake of superficial comedy. It is as if some elements were incorporated especially to please a certain kind of fan boys who expect clichés and name-dropping.

Q: If you don't like it, why are you so much opposed to the simple explanation that Enterprise takes place in a parallel universe?
A: It has several reasons. First of all, the compatible links between Enterprise and the rest of Trek outweigh the continuity problems or errors in my view - although the latter are still too many. Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics forbids two previously divergent timelines (Enterprise vs. the "true" history of the 22nd century) to converge to the same future (23rd and 24th century). Thirdly, if Enterprise takes place in a parallel timeline, it is still canonical, in spite of all claims that with this trick it could be invalidated. It would hardly have any impact if it really were a parallel timeline.

Q: Quit bashing Enterprise. If you think you're so smart, why don't you launch your own TV series?
A: You're completely missing the point. First of all, I never claimed I could do a better job. I freely admit that I would be a lousy screenwriter or producer. But the people who are responsible for Star Trek are professionals, and they have according salaries. Star Trek, in strong contrast to this website, is a commercial product for which anyone of us has to pay in some fashion. We are supposed to watch it and we have a right to criticize it. Wouldn't you want your vacuum cleaner to be fixed if it didn't work half of the time? Secondly, if you complain about me complaining about Enterprise, you either presuppose that everything on TV is inherently terrific (very unlikely), or that particularly Enterprise is beyond criticism, or that only your opinion counts anyway. It's a matter of opinion, so please leave me mine. Finally, I never force anyone to read or even to believe what I'm writing. To paraphrase your words, why don't you write your own reviews?

Q: Your episode reviews are unfair. They focus on finding errors, without recognizing good drama.
A: First of all, you need to take my reviews with a grain of salt, as you would do it with anything written by anyone else. It may be true that I pay more attention to continuity and technical plausibility than most other critics. But as I repeatedly say in my reviews I am taking the errors only into account for my rating if they really ruin the episode (such as in VOY: "Threshold"). As my assessment of the drama and the resulting ratings are concerned, I don't think that they usually deviate much from what other reviewers think about them. And a differing opinion should always be allowed. I never criticize other reviewers for their views. -- But what is "good drama" anyway? In my view you can't call something "good drama" that relies on silly premises or on stereotypes, even if the wording of the screenplay, the directing and acting are fine. Unlike most other online critics, I never compare Star Trek with any other TV show, and I rate it on a completely independent scale. On the other hand, I always compare a new episode with everything that has been shown on Star Trek before. We are dealing with a series, and I am simply not forgetful enough not to notice when writers either rehash or ignore previous stories (or even do both at once!). See a more detailed explanation of my Episode Ratings.

Q: Why are you so keen on finding errors and inconsistencies?
A: I'm not a nitpicker who is always looking for missing rank pips, but I rather pay attention to continuity on a more general level. For instance, I would have appreciated if there had been at least a bit of continuity to TNG when the DS9 Trills were created, if the CGI people who spent many hours to create the U.S.S. Prometheus had taken only a few minutes (or called Rick Sternbach) to check Starfleet's registry scheme, and if it had been decided to make NX-01 look like a genuine 22nd century design instead of an Akira-esque travesty.

Q: Why do you always bash TPTB, the writers, the Star Trek Art Department or the VFX people for crappy work?
A: I never want to create the impression that the responsible people are doing bad job. I am aware that tight schedules, lack of budget, unexpected changes and the necessary coordination of too many involved people sometimes inevitably lead to compromises, improvisation and continuity errors - many of which most fans don't even notice. So even if everyone in the staff does their very best (and I'm sure they usually do), it can't be 100% perfect, but only 99% or so. The Making of Star Trek by Stephen Whitfield is highly recommended reading in this regard. So it's not my general impression, let alone a preconception that Star Trek is flawed. On the contrary, if I didn't honor the great work of the production staff, I could hardly be a fan of the show. Only a few things like the consciously asinine turbolift scene in "Star Trek V" really annoy me.

Q: Why do you always bash the Star Trek Fact Files or the Deep Space Nine Technical Manual for being wrong or inaccurate?
A: I wouldn't say that the secondary publications are generally wrong and everything stated there should be doubted. Some inaccurate ship schematics in the Fact Files and silly technical specs in the DS9TM are no reason that these publications are flawed on the whole. On the contrary, they are mostly well-researched and should be on every fan's bookshelf. Reading my site might create the impression that I criticize everything, but that's because I simply don't want to reproduce their content, so I pick the errors and try to correct them. Concerning their reliability and plausibility there are differences between the publications, though. I would wish every reference manual were as well-crafted as the TNG Technical Manual.

Q: Your own ship designs are fanciless and boring, and they look unrealistic and cheap.
A: That's just your opinion. When I design a starship I always try to keep the shapes and dimensions technically plausible. Regarding the style, I just don't like aggressive looking warships with exotic weapons, and I would want to see them neither in the show nor on my website. As for the quality of my drawings, I keep improving it. Considering that many hours are required to add all the details to a drawing, this task will still take several years.

Q: Your English sucks. Learn it.
A: I don't react well to smartasses who contribute absolutely nothing but insults. In case you haven't noticed (which would only speak in my favor), English is not my native language. Is any language you speak besides English remotely as good as my English? If yes, I can assure you that I am constantly learning and that I frequently correct errors. In case this is still not enough in your view, you have to prove to me that the language on at least 90% of all websites maintained by native speakers is better.

Q: There are no series named TOS or TAS. They are both simply "Star Trek", just like the eleventh movie that you keep calling "Star Trek XI".
A: Thanks for the instruction, but I will keep everything as it is. The disambiguation is inevitable and is also widely accepted.

Q: Your scientific analysis is lacking. You shouldn't subscribe to pseudo-science and technobabble but use real science, like Lawrence Krauss, the author of The Physics of Star Trek.
A: I am well aware that the science in Star Trek is flawed. But that's just the nature of science fiction. It has been envisioned by authors with usually high-school level scientific education. Why should I go and over-interpret something that was made without any ambition to be scientifically correct? I comment on errors where I notice them, but I see no reason why wrong usage of units, stupid figures or even sloppy visual effects should require me to re-assess the meaning of Star Trek. I would like to keep my suspension of disbelief, and not watch it with the eyes of a 21st century physics nerd who thinks that he is better than anyone writing science fiction. Over-interpretation or re-interpretation ultimately ruins any kind of fiction. Lawrence Krauss, although his book The Physics of Star Trek is definitely good reading, is guilty of the latter. It is a good physics lesson, but a bad Star Trek reference. Read my review of the book and more about the Realism of Science Fiction.

Q: I know your ship sizes (or other specs) are way wrong.
A: Please state if you really *know* that, if you have *evidence*, if you *presume* that, if you *want* that to be so, or if you just ran into a website where different sizes were given. Don't mistake it as arrogance, but you can be sure that I have checked various references for every little piece of information, including video tapes, reference books, websites and discussions with other Trek fans or even with the production staff. I can always tell you how I came to my conclusion, but unless you have new proof I hope you understand that I don't like to rehash all the old arguments over and over.

Q: Some of the content on your website is incomplete, inaccurate or wrong. The majority of websites disagree with your findings.
A: Really? The majority isn't always right. I can't stress enough that almost every little bit of information on this website is *researched*, meaning that I have taken into account the most reliable references and haven't simply copied data from elsewhere. You may have run across databases that may have been more comprehensive (and better designed or easier to navigate anyway), but this is only possible at the expense of research. Without mentioning any particular examples, the technical information given at other Trek sites is often outdated or contains totally conjectural specs (even arbitrary selections of ship designs and names from fan fiction), which are not noted as such. It is the price for the approach to cover more topics and provide a better user interface than EAS - well, sometimes it may be laziness and lack of interest too. I don't claim that you have to believe every word I'm saying, but I'm doing everything to correct errors and keep the information up to date. Little updates take place almost daily and are just too countless to announce them on my main page.

Q: You are not TPTB (The Powers That Be). So why do you try to impose your opinions on other fans?
A: I often notice that other fans are very curious about my opinion, as if it were taken more seriously than other fan work. Some few people accuse me of being dogmatic or just arrogant. This is probably because EAS is not simply parroting stuff published elsewhere, but is bringing up inconvenient issues. I know it sounds immodest, but EAS has become the world's leading source of technical Star Trek information. The site presents my personal findings and those of many contributors I rely on, thoroughly based on strictly canon information, real science, common sense and with an absolute minimum of conjecture. Nothing more and nothing less. I always know what I am talking about, and I strongly doubt that many other webmasters could claim the same. -- But the question is already the answer. I'm not in a position to tell other people what they ought to believe, and I don't want to. I don't create anything canon. If you don't like my views, you don't have to listen. If you think I'm wrong, you may always go and prove it. You will see that I don't simply reject your arguments if they are valid. I'm incorporating visitor comments to my articles every few days. -- As for the tone on my website, some of my statements may sound overly definite, which may be mistaken as dogmatic. But honestly, would you like to see my findings rephrased like this: "The Defiant is 170m long according to the DS9TM, and this is what we all ought to believe. 120m is just my humble personal unofficial heretical fanon opinion"? Alternatively, I could just duplicate the information in the DS9TM without any comment: "Defiant: 170m" like on average Trek sites. I hope I could make my point clear. BTW, even TPTB shouldn't be allowed to exert total control. Star Trek™ may be the property of Paramount, but Star Trek belongs to us, the fans.

Q: It's only a show. Get a life!
A: Okay, William Shatner once said that, but he was only quoting a truism among people who just don't (want to) know Trek or merely see it as a weekly dose of mindless entertainment. Star Trek fans will lack social acceptance as long as the prejudice about them being overweight male teenage computer nerds in their parents' basement is further being disseminated. No one would say "Get a life!" to someone who is interested in music, literature or most obviously sports which are all rated as "useful" or at least "acceptable". If you don't like what I'm doing, give me real reasons or shut up. Be tolerant. I'm not insulting you because of your dedication to a hobby either.

Canon

Q: What is "canon" exactly?
A: You may read my extensive write-up about Canon. In brief, I always try to stick to the following widespread definition. Technically, canon is what writers should pay attention to in the making of new Star Trek episodes. Everything that was shown in a previous live action episode or movie is canon. Anything physically impossible in the shows like the 78 decks of the Enterprise-A is still canon. Yet, we don't have to buy everything and make up twisted explanations where logic and common sense fail. Official publications by the Okudas, Rick Sternbach, Herman Zimmerman, Doug Drexler or other people directly involved in the production are not canon themselves, but they reflect canon facts. Even if these books are supplemented with "apocryphal" names, dates or specs not mentioned in the show, this may be practical to limit the room for speculation. Finally, there is the huge category of licensed and fan fiction all of which is non-canon, including all novels, games, RPGs and fan-made web pages. It is obvious that no one could ever reconcile all these additional contradictory facts. Even the novels and games authorized by Paramount are non-canon, considering that "authorized" merely means that a license is given to another party which doesn't oblige Paramount to anything. For instance, although many fans accept that the "Insurrection" scout ship was imprudently christened "Venture class" in a game, it will never go by this name in an official publication.

Q: Why don't you distinguish better what is canon information and what was made up by you?
A: Actually, I wouldn't know how to draw the line still clearer as it already is. All information on this website is strictly based on canon facts, and speculation is limited to very obvious conclusions and always explicitly marked as such - please note the systematic use of the subjunctive, of "could, would, might be" and little words like "if" or "perhaps". Unlike it is the case on most other websites and especially many databanks I don't make up any information about ships and technology, even if this leaves wide gaps in my lists and charts. Please check if seemingly more complete databanks in the web don't possibly use lots of non-canon information. The Starfleet Museum, the ASDB, the JoAT and the EAS Fleet Yards is fan fiction which I hope becomes clear at the first glance.

Q: Why don't you list the ships in the game ABC or the book XYZ as official designs? They are authorized by Paramount.
A: All games, all novels and some non-fiction books have to be regarded as non-canon, no matter if authorized by Paramount or not. Once again, please note that "authorized by Paramount" means nothing more than that the game or book company is allowed to use the brand name "Star Trek". Paramount has no obligation to adopt anything published this way for the TV series. On the contrary, they avoid involving anything that was not created by them or one of their contractors for the show as otherwise they might have to pay royalties!

Q: Why don't you take into account The Animated Series (TAS) as fully canon?
A: So far EAS strictly complied with TPTB's stance that TAS was non-canon. Now that the official policy has purportedly been amended, I feel absolutely unable to promptly conform once again. This would not only mean for me to dig for new information in the series, which would be still the fun part, but it would require me to sift through the whole site and reconsider countless conclusions. TAS has been largely isolated for the past 25 years, and some facts will remain irreconcilable with the five live-action series. Especially due its nature as a show conceived for children and the often lacking quality of the production it often even doesn't allow to apply the same criteria. It gives TAS a different, usually lower weight than the live-action series in my view. These are the reasons why TAS will remain in a "proto-canon" limbo at EAS. It will gradually appear in side notes and in separate sections, but evidence from live-action Trek will generally supersede accounts from TAS. As soon as a new Star Trek series heavily references events from TAS and hence TAS fulfills the criterion of being linked with everything else as outlined at startrek.com, I may reconsider this solution. In any case the TAS policy at EAS is mainly a technical necessity, not primarily a decision because of my opinion of the series.

Q: But there were references to Franz Joseph's Star Trek Technical Manual in canon Star Trek.
A: If canon Star Trek shows Franz Joseph (even FASA) ship designs, this doesn't men that they are all canon too. Since they are otherwise largely ignored and contradicted by TPTB, they can be best described as non-canon unless otherwise stated.

Q: But didn't Gene decanonize "Star Trek V" and "Star Trek VI" as well?
A: He may have meant it this way. However, unlike TAS the two movies are necessary for the overall Trek continuity. They are canon. As such, the events in "Star Trek V" may have and should have been as presented, but we don't have to believe that there was a journey to the center of the galaxy or that the Enterprise-A had 78 decks.

Q: Why are you so strict about "canonicity" anyway?
A: There are people who accept only canon - because they know the Okudas' Encyclopedia by heart or because they just refuse to see that Trek can be anything else. On the other hand, there is the kind who stir up canon and fandom at will - because they either don't know that much and believe anything they see or read or because they don't want their creativity be limited by TPTB. I know lots of either type of fans and any shade in between. One typical situation is that some people on a message board explicitly talk about the number of nacelles on canon starships and someone throws in that the Federation class and Saladin class (from Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual) are odd-nacelled. The result is a fruitless discussion about the term "canon", about the value of canon, about the authority of Roddenberry, Okuda, Paramount or Pocket Books, about books which should be considered canon because they are written by Jeri Taylor, about Colonel West and the Starfleet Marines, and so on. Since I'm tired of such discussions, I go with TPTB and agree with their definition of canon, while I encourage anyone to include whatever he likes to his own view of the Star Trek Universe. That's what I'm doing with my personal ship designs, the ASDB and the Starfleet Museum too. I would never want to miss the fan-made stuff because it really enriches the universe, no matter if I "believe" in it. I probably can't help those who don't even want to see anything that was not released by Paramount or the other extreme group, those who don't care about the idea of Star Trek and are turning Starfleet into a military organization with big-gunned warships. For anyone in between, canon is a common ground. Everything else is left to our imagination and tolerance, or better, mutual understanding. There are always possibilities!

Q: Your page on canon is a total waste, because it is not up to you to decide what is canon.
A: If you actually read the frakking page, you will notice that I discuss the issue because the people who are expected to decide what is canon don't always agree or don't even care.

Q: Why does the Ex Astris guy make up things like that TAS is suddenly canon?
A: Go and kill the messenger. The Ex Astris guy doesn't claim he makes Star Trek, but he is well-informed and may be the first to bring you the news, whether you like it or not.

Home   Top
	Last modified: 22.04.08
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/faq.htm