Timelines and Ambiguities

[CuttingEdge100]

I was thinking it's about time to create a serious thread about the discussion of the timeline and so forth

Actual Dates

• The Cage was filmed in 1964
• Where No Man Has Gone Before was filmed in 1965
• The TV Series went on the air in September 1966, and ended June, 1969

Notes: In-Show

• The Enterprise is on a 5-year deployment
• James T. Kirk was born March 22, 2233 (I don't know when this became canon)
• James T. Kirk joined the academy in 2250 at age 17
• Presumably he graduated at Age 21 in 2254

Stardates

• The whole purpose of the stardate system was to create a measure of time that was not tied to a specific date
• Technically each number was supposed to signify a day (i.e 4713.1 and 4715.1 are two days apart)[/i]; each decimal is supposed to represent a fraction of a day (4720.5 is noon; 4721.0 is midnight)
• Though the stardate system was pretty straight forward in Star Trek II, III, IV, and even V
• During TOS and TNG they did not really follow this however
• In TOS the first number seemed to indicate what year of deployment it was in
  - Year 1: 1312.4, 1513.1, 1709.2
  - Year 2: 2712.4, 2821.4, 2947.3
  - Year 3: 3018.2, 3192.1, 3417.3
  - Year 4: 4040.7, 4513.3, 4768.3
  - Year 5: 5027.3, 5476.3, 5928.5
  [*]In TNG, the second number indicated what season the show was filmed
  - Season 1: 41153.7
  - Season 2: 42609.1
  - Season 3: 43989.1
  - Season 4: 44307.3
  - Season 5: 45156.1
  - Season 6: 46944.2
  - Season 7: 47988.0
  [*]This same system carried through to Voyager
  

Ambiguities

• Did the 5 year mission of the Enterprise start in 2264 or '65?

 

[The Wormhole]

James T. Kirk was born March 22, 2233 (I don't know when this became canon)

It's not. Well, 2233 is, since it's calculated from his age being 34 in 2267 as stated in The Deadly Years. However, the date itself is not canon. It is used in the novels, and is based on Shatner's actual birthday, but was never stated on screen. Indeed, Trek XI shows Kirk being born on January 4, but that is apparently a result of Nero's Presence Changing Everything (TM).

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

• Did the 5 year mission of the Enterprise start in 2264 or '65?

It started in '65 and ended sometime in mid-to-late 2270. Decker's comment to Kirk about his not having logged a star hour in two-and-a-half years during TMP would place the film in early 2273.


--Sran

 

[BillJ]

Indeed, Trek XI shows Kirk being born on January 4, but that is apparently a result of Nero's Presence Changing Everything (TM).

He'd still be born in 2233 unless his Mom had a 21-month pregnancy.

 

[L'Idiot]

2265

 

[Timo]

Decker's comment to Kirk about his not having logged a star hour in two-and-a-half years during TMP would place the film in early 2273.

...At the very earliest, that is.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Enterprise1701]

• Did the 5 year mission of the Enterprise start in 2264 or '65?

It started in '65 and ended sometime in mid-to-late 2270. Decker's comment to Kirk about his not having logged a star hour in two-and-a-half years during TMP would place the film in early 2273.


--Sran

Yep. In VOY: "Q2", Icheb specifically states that the famed 5 year mission was from 2265 to 2270.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

The Wormhole

It's not. Well, 2233 is, since it's calculated from his age being 34 in 2267 as stated in The Deadly Years.

The Deadly Years was written in the 2nd Season, but the Stardate being in the 3000's appears to place it 3-years into the timeline


BillJ

He'd still be born in 2233 unless his Mom had a 21-month pregnancy.

Labor triggered by extreme stress, how much earlier would he have been delivered? A month?


Enterprise1701

Yep. In VOY: "Q2", Icheb specifically states that the famed 5 year mission was from 2265 to 2270.

That seems like a solid number: Was there anything canonical before that?

 

[Timo]

Only the couple of half-joking references to TOS events being roughly 200 years later than the 1960s (in "Tomorrow is Yesterday") or the 1990s ("Space Seed")... Plus the odd "She's 20 years old!" thing from ST3, a movie not particularly exactly dated at the time but still taking place after the 2283 date of McCoy's bottle in the previous movie.

It should be noted that Icheb only says the 5ym ended in 2270 - he doesn't give a starting date. So late 2264 - early 66 still remains the range of possible starting dates, and we don't know for sure which episodes of TOS were part of the 5ym (say, the second pilot and the stardate-free eps are open to some interpretation).

Icheb: "Finally, in the year 2270, Kirk completed his historic five year mission and one of the greatest chapters in Starfleet history came to a close."

And that's all, folks. In theory, we could even argue that Kirk started his 5ym a decade earlier, but had to put it on hold for a few years, lending weight to Icheb's use of "finally"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Wormhole]

The Wormhole

It's not. Well, 2233 is, since it's calculated from his age being 34 in 2267 as stated in The Deadly Years.

The Deadly Years was written in the 2nd Season, but the Stardate being in the 3000's appears to place it 3-years into the timeline

Where do you get that idea from? There was no consistency to the TOS stardates, and indeed Roddenberry once made a comment that the Enterprise uses the current stardate of local space to account for the fact they never match up properly.

Besides, according to canon The Trouble with Tribbles takes place in the year 2268 (105 years prior to Trials and Tribble-Ations, which does canonically take place in the year 2373) which is three years into the five year mission. But its stardate is 4523.3, which by your logic would place the episode in the fourth year of the 5YM.

It is generally accepted that TOS mostly covers the years 2266-2296, with The Cage taking place in 2253 and WNMHGB in 2265.

 

[Timo]

There was no consistency to the TOS stardates

Yet there isn't any real inconsistency, either, and many a thing works out pretty well if we assume that TOS, like TNG, operated on a 1000 SD/1 yr basis. We get to see the entire five-year mission for starters...

It is only by assuming that TOS and TNG stardates are at a set distance from each other that we get into problems.

Besides, according to canon The Trouble with Tribbles takes place in the year 2268 (105 years prior to Trials and Tribble-Ations, which does canonically take place in the year 2373) which is three years into the five year mission. But its stardate is 4523.3, which by your logic would place the episode in the fourth year of the 5YM.

Whenever discussing differences-in-years, and not assuming 365-day-sharp, we have a fudge factor of one year either way, because the difference can fall on the more convenient side of New Year.

In this case, "Trials" is a stardate-free episode, but it takes place at the first half of the fifth season (in the middle of a stardate-free spell that ends at SD 50417), and many things suggest that each season straddles two years (just like Paramount seasons do), making "Trials" a late 2372 episode. By TNG era stardate logic, "Trouble" in turn would be either an early 2269 or an early 2268 episode, depending on what we assume "5 year mission ended in 2270" really means. The time difference in turn is 105 yrs, 1 month, 12 days.

So, the time difference by TNG stardate rules ought to be only about 104 years, and in fact a tad less rather than a month more than the even number. But that's a worry only if we assume the stardate difference between TNG and TOS is fixed.

It is generally accepted that TOS mostly covers the years 2266-2296, with The Cage taking place in 2253 and WNMHGB in 2265.

...But other possibilities exist, especially regarding the placement of the second pilot. And 2296 must be wrong - ST:GEN is 78 years before either 2371 or 2372, depending.

Timo

 

[The Wormhole]

In this case, "Trials" is a stardate-free episode, but it takes place at the first half of the fifth season (in the middle of a stardate-free spell that ends at SD 50417), and many things suggest that each season straddles two years (just like Paramount seasons do), making "Trials" a late 2372 episode.

Actually, if you follow the "stardates straddle two years" theory, then DS9 season 5 covers the years 2373-74, which makes Trials a late 2373 episode.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo

It should be noted that Icheb only says the 5ym ended in 2270 - he doesn't give a starting date. So late 2264 - early 66 still remains the range of possible starting dates, and we don't know for sure which episodes of TOS were part of the 5ym (say, the second pilot and the stardate-free eps are open to some interpretation).

Well, technically it could have started in November 2264 and ended in March 2270 or something like that theoretically

Yet there isn't any real inconsistency, either, and many a thing works out pretty well if we assume that TOS, like TNG, operated on a 1000 SD/1 yr basis. We get to see the entire five-year mission for starters…

In this case, "Trials" is a stardate-free episode, but it takes place at the first half of the fifth season (in the middle of a stardate-free spell that ends at SD 50417), and many things suggest that each season straddles two years (just like Paramount seasons do), making "Trials" a late 2372 episode.

Actually, DS9 has some screw-ups in it right from the start: The battle of Wolf 359 occurs around 44002.3; the narrative for Emissary said the battle occurred 43997 and also said that it was 3 years later when DS9 the episode started; This would mean it would have to be at least 47002.3 for it to be 3 years later.

By TNG era stardate logic, "Trouble" in turn would be either an early 2269 or an early 2268 episode, depending on what we assume "5 year mission ended in 2270" really means. The time difference in turn is 105 yrs, 1 month, 12 days.

The Wormhole

Where do you get that idea from?

I'm not sure actually, I could have totally misremembered something else. Regardless it does make sense (the numbers never go into the 6,000's)

Roddenberry once made a comment that the Enterprise uses the current star-date of local space to account for the fact they never match up properly.

It's possible that he seriously thought that was a good idea for time measurement, the star-date system was largely to avoid tying the date to a specific year

Besides, according to canon The Trouble with Tribbles takes place in the year 2268 (105 years prior to Trials and Tribble-Ations, which does canonically take place in the year 2373) which is three years into the five year mission.

Actually, it was first aired in Dec 29, 1967

But its stardate is 4523.3, which by your logic would place the episode in the fourth year of the 5YM.

You have to keep in mind, Gene Roddenberry's system was intentionally cryptic, that lead to guesses and estimates, which lead to estimates on that. Effectively everything compounded on itself.

Basically the TV series starts out with the aim of being around 300 years in the future, which points to 2264 or 2265; TWOK originally revolved around Kirk being 49 which ends up revolving around a year; TWOK, TSFS, and so on ran back to back…

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm not sure actually, I could have totally misremembered something else. Regardless it does make sense (the numbers never go into the 6,000's)

They do if you count TAS, which has stardates in 6000 and 7000

Actually, it was first aired in Dec 29, 1967

I know when it aired, however, in Trials and Tribble-Ations when Sisko tells Dulmur and Lucsly the stardate he traveled to, they say that was 105 years ago. Since it is canonical fact that Trials and indeed DS9's fifth season takes place in 2373, 105 years earlier is 2268, which is by extension when The Trouble with Tribbles takes place, canonically stated.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Well there have been many conflicting statements over the years, both in and out of universe. I go with the modern novelverse's idea that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is in 2265, "The Corbomite Maneuver" is in 2266, and the five year mission ended in December 2270 following the Pelosian mission (as portrayed in DTI: Forgotten History). And Star Trek: The Motion Picture takes place in the second half of 2273.

 

[Timo]

Actually, if you follow the "stardates straddle two years" theory, then DS9 season 5 covers the years 2373-74, which makes Trials a late 2373 episode.

Well, no. TNG season 1 explicitly ends on 2364, thus would start on 2363 - with 41xxx range stardates. So 51xxx would be 2373/74, and DS9 season 5 then 2372/73 for the 50xxx range of dates.

The issue is confused by noncanon references to VOY concluding year etc. and Neelix' odd definition of "anniversary", but the model itself works to these years.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo

Would what I said be a good guide to start with?

 

[The Wormhole]

The issue is confused by noncanon references to VOY concluding year etc. and Neelix' odd definition of "anniversary", but the model itself works to these years.

Not really non-canon, the episode Homestead is stated in the episode to be 315 years after First Contact, and 315 after 2063 is 2378. But you're right, this does contradict The Neutral Zone being in 2364.

Although, for what it's worth, other times this issue has been brought up, the novel authors among us have said that Pocket Books instructs its authors that a stardate covers an Earth calendar year, and that each season premiere is in January and the finale is in December, and that TNG's entire season 1 is 2364, season 2 is 2365 and so on. Mind you, this seems problematic for cliffhangers. Do they all take place on New Year's?

 

[Enterprise1701]

The issue is confused by noncanon references to VOY concluding year etc. and Neelix' odd definition of "anniversary", but the model itself works to these years.

Not really non-canon, the episode Homestead is stated in the episode to be 315 years after First Contact, and 315 after 2063 is 2378. But you're right, this does contradict The Neutral Zone being in 2364.

Although, for what it's worth, other times this issue has been brought up, the novel authors among us have said that Pocket Books instructs its authors that a stardate covers an Earth calendar year, and that each season premiere is in January and the finale is in December, and that TNG's entire season 1 is 2364, season 2 is 2365 and so on. Mind you, this seems problematic for cliffhangers. Do they all take place in New Year's?

Yep. Starfleet vessels are always lucky on the human Gregorian New Year's Day.

One clear timeline error by the producers which really annoys me is the onscreen date captions in "Emissary". It says that the main story begins 3 years after the prologue. Benjamin Sisko's first log entry in "Emissary" is on stardate 46379.1 and obviously in 2369. If we logically assume that xx500 is the midpoint of the year, ~June 30/July 1, then Sisko's arrival at Deep Space 9 has to be less than 2.5 years after the Batle of Wolf 359 since Picard "was kidnapped for six days" and the log entry in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" is on 44001.4 (within the first week of January 2367).

 

[F. King Daniel]

James T. Kirk was born March 22, 2233 (I don't know when this became canon)

It's not. Well, 2233 is, since it's calculated from his age being 34 in 2267 as stated in The Deadly Years. However, the date itself is not canon. It is used in the novels, and is based on Shatner's actual birthday, but was never stated on screen. Indeed, Trek XI shows Kirk being born on January 4, but that is apparently a result of Nero's Presence Changing Everything (TM).