Enterprise becoming a training ship?

[Christopher]

Wasn't the Okuda mission duration 2264 to '69? "Q2" was tweaking an assumption of theirs, not accepting it.

It was accepting it and tweaking it. "Q2" was simply a slight refinement of the Okudachron scheme; it's still accepted that TOS per se took place in 2266-69, and the only difference is how soon the mission ended after "Turnabout Intruder" (with the Okudachron precluding TAS and late-5YM novels and the revised ending date permitting them). My point was to contrast that scheme (in both nearly identical variations) with the earlier fan schemes that all put TOS itself on different dates.

 

[Stevil2001]

In the first edition, yes. They changed it for the subsequent editions, and that was still before "Q2," IIRC.

Really? The only one I owned was the 1996 one, and I remember 2264-69 pretty strongly. I don't know where my copy is any more, or I'd check.

It was accepting it and tweaking it. "Q2" was simply a slight refinement of the Okudachron scheme; it's still accepted that TOS per se took place in 2266-69, and the only difference is how soon the mission ended after "Turnabout Intruder" (with the Okudachron precluding TAS and late-5YM novels and the revised ending date permitting them). My point was to contrast that scheme (in both nearly identical variations) with the earlier fan schemes that all put TOS itself on different dates.

I was only being precise, given you were quoting someone giving the 2265-70 dating.

 

[Christopher]

Really? The only one I owned was the 1996 one, and I remember 2264-69 pretty strongly. I don't know where my copy is any more, or I'd check.

Yes, of course, but the point is that even if they date the start and end of the 5-year mission differently, they still date the three seasons of TOS the same way, as 2266-69, exactly 300 years after broadcast. The only difference is in whether they treat those three years as the last three years of the 5YM or more in the middle.

I was only being precise, given you were quoting someone giving the 2265-70 dating.

Too precise. The slight variance between what the Okudachron said and what "Q2" later established is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is why I didn't bother to differentiate between them. The "Q2" version is merely a slight refinement of the Okuda scheme, while the different fan theories I was talking about were more distinct from one another (although Johnson's scheme may have been based on the SFC or FASA scheme, since they only differ by a couple of years).

 

[lawman]

I've always thought that the pilot of TNG, in 1987, was (implicitly) endorsing the SFC/FASA version of the timeline. If you posit the FYM circa 2206-11, and keep ST II 15 years after "Space Seed," then ST II/III would fall c. 2222. It seemed awfully specific that TNG was introduced as being set not merely in the 24th century but explicitly "78 years" after the voyages of the original Enterprise — which we'd seen end with its destruction in ST III. 78 years from 2222 is 2300, the first year of the 24th century. The reference to Data's graduation also fits with this: if Data was found and activated 26 years before the TNG pilot (as stated), and then spent four years at the Academy, those four years would be 2274-78.

Of course, obviously somebody's mind had changed by the end of that same season, because the 2364 reference disregarded all of that, and wound up being the one that "stuck."

Another thing that always bothered me a lot about the OkudaChron (and still does) that no one else has mentioned yet is the way it treated every season of TNG as an exact calendar year, Jan-Dec. Amazing how many dramatic cliffhanger events wound up happening around Earth's New Year! :-) There was no reason for this at all, and indeed some internal references (e.g., in Data's Day, set 1550 days since the Ent-D's commissioning and coinciding with the Hindu festival of lights) only make sense if "Stardate years" do not in fact synchronize with Earth years. A few years (and series) on in the franchise, someone had apparently rethought this, since a couple seasons of VOY explicitly had late-season episodes (11:59, Homestead) with internal dates in April. The Novelverse seems to have reverted to it, however.

 

[Jinn]

The Novelverse seems to have reverted to it, however.

At least the (24th century) novelverse follows an internal logic with the stardates.

 

[Stevil2001]

At least the (24th century) novelverse follows an internal logic with the stardates.

For me the one Earth day = 2.7 stardates thing removes all the magic from stardates.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Amazing how many dramatic cliffhanger events wound up happening around Earth's New Year! :-)

Well, the holidays can be stressful...

There was no reason for this at all, and indeed some internal references (e.g., in Data's Day, set 1550 days since the Ent-D's commissioning and coinciding with the Hindu festival of lights) only make sense if "Stardate years" do not in fact synchronize with Earth years.

Another thing in the show that refutes the 1 year = 1000 stardates assumption is that "Second Sight" had the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Wolf 359 around stardate 47329. Unless they were measuring four Bajoran years or something...

 

[ryan123450]

Wow. I skipped over this thread until now. I had no idea it was all about TOS chronology. What a fun read this has been.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Another thing that always bothered me a lot about the OkudaChron (and still does) that no one else has mentioned yet is the way it treated every season of TNG as an exact calendar year, Jan-Dec. Amazing how many dramatic cliffhanger events wound up happening around Earth's New Year! :-)

No matter when you think each season starts and ends, those "cliffhanger events" still happen at the same time of year...does it really matter if the galaxy is in crisis every May 23rd instead of December 31st?

 

[Stevil2001]

No matter when you think each season starts and ends, those "cliffhanger events" still happen at the same time of year...does it really matter if the galaxy is in crisis every May 23rd instead of December 31st?

Well, if you don't go with a strict stardate correspondence (as I would argue "Second Sight" indicates doesn't exist), they don't. Though I guess even if they don't always occur at the same point in the Earth calendar year, they still always happen when the thousands digit of the stardate rolls over!

 

[Avro Arrow]

Though I guess even if they don't always occur at the same point in the Earth calendar year, they still always happen when the thousands digit of the stardate rolls over!

 

[Lt. Tyler]

Honestly, there's no good way to reconcile "Where No Man"'s claim about the Valiant with what later Trek has established about chronology and warp speeds, so we pretty much have to assume some kind of subspace storm dragged it hundreds of parsecs. Still, it's just not plausible that an expedition on that scale would've been mounted just a couple of years after the first prototype engine was tested. It'd probably take longer than that even to outfit a mission to Alpha Centauri. At the very least, the "two centuries" reference should be assumed to be rounded up from maybe 180 years or thereabouts.

Yes but what is we took that theory in one of the novels that WNMHGB is an alternate reality?

 

[Idran]

Yes but what is we took that theory in one of the novels that WNMHGB is an alternate reality?

That was in Q Squared (sort of; I don't think it was supposed to be more than just one of PAD's wink-nudges, this one about the "James R. Kirk" thing), but Vanguard already had the fallout of that mission as a major subplot in "Harbinger".

You could say that the version we saw was an AU and there were "real" events that were similar-but-different-enough-to-work, but if you're going to do that then you might as well just tweak the details of the episode in your head and drop the "but that exact set of stuff happened in an AU" part entirely. Less brain stress that way; going down that road, you could end up putting every episode in its own distinct continuity if you go too far.

 

[Timo]

I'm not sure what would be unrealistic about the Valiant launching, say, two and a half months after Cochrane's Phoenix. If the inventor could cobble together the hardware on a shoestring budget, then just about anybody else could do better. We are given no indication that the components of the FTL drive would take long to manufacture, once one has access to raw materials and blueprints - and the US, a likely patron for a ship named Valiant given the circumstances, doesn't appear too badly off in the 2060s timeframe and is likely to enjoy good access to Cochrane's work no matter whether he remains capitalistically driven, goes patriot, or goes altruist.

And if a Mad Scientist came to a government or a corporation today and claimed to have built a FTL drive in his garage, and then proved his claim beyond doubt, what would be the odds that the government or corporation would not bite? Why would they hold with releasing a product for one second longer than they absolutely had to? Especially when there was no actual "releasing" involved: launching the Valiant into deep space would offer competitors nothing at all to grab.

The mission of the Valiant we know squat about. We don't have to assume it was anything particularly ambitious, at least compared with things like Charybdis. Spock confirms that a magic storm swept them where they didn't want to go; previously, Kirk had indicated that the ship had no business being anywhere near where her marker was found. So a humble mission in Earth's vicinity is a distinct possibility. Heck, the ship was declared missing basically immediately after launch, heavily suggesting there was no way to maintain contact or tracking across great distances, this in turn suggesting no such distances were intended to be part of the mission.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

@Timo: The issue is having a ship that could have reached the edge of the galaxy by 2065, the strict 200 year figure that the Okuda chronology assumed. Yes, of course it could have been launched a few months after Cochrane, but Earth wasn't even warp 2 capable until 2143, and the SS Conestoga took 9 years just to reach a star 20 light years away in the late 2070s. There's no way that the Valiant could have ejected their log beacon literally precisely 200 years before WNMHGB. If it was a multiyear journey and the exact time before WNMHGB was, like, 180 years earlier or something, with the "200 years ago" comment just being a rounding off, then sure, but this whole conversation started from Christopher pointing out the Okudas' ridiculous habit of treating every "x00 years ago" or "x0 years ago" comment as a precise figure in their Chronology.

And is there any reason to say that it was exactly 200 years before WNMHGB beyond that being the number said, maybe with the extra weak excuse of "well Spock wouldn't round"? It can be forced to fit by assuming the whole magic storm thing was even more magic than otherwise, but does it fit equally as well as assuming Spock actually was rounding this time and it was a shorter time span than precisely 200 years?

 

[Timo]

@Timo: The issue is having a ship that could have reached the edge of the galaxy by 2065, the strict 200 year figure that the Okuda chronology assumed.

...But why should that be an issue if we all already agree that the technology of the ship herself played no real role in the reaching?

The magical (eh, "magnetic") storm can be given the characteristics required for whisking the ship across the required number of lightyears in less than the maximum allowed time - it is standard fare for Trek spatiotemporal anomalies, no more, no less.

And is there any reason to say that it was exactly 200 years before WNMHGB beyond that being the number said, maybe with the extra weak excuse of "well Spock wouldn't round"? It can be forced to fit by assuming the whole magic storm thing was even more magic than otherwise, but does it fit equally as well as assuming Spock actually was rounding this time and it was a shorter time span than precisely 200 years?

In this particular case, the ship was said to have been lost "over" 200 years prior to Kirk's dictating of the relevant log. No rounding the other way allowed... So even 2065 would be cutting it awfully close, and late 2063 (as opposed to the April of warp introduction) would be preferable. It would be almost exactly 200 years anyway, not by Okuda preference but by force of evidence from the pilot episode and ST:FC (or perhaps "Metamorphosis") combined.

In any case, giving the ship an extra few decades doesn't sound worthwhile: Kirk thinks it flat out impossible anyway that the Valiant recorder marker could be where it is. And if the ship did have the ability to travel a lion's share of the lightyearage in a couple of decades all on her own, why declare her "lost" almost immediately after launch? Would that be done automatically on all ships at departure, with the verdict reversed at their return?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

I guess it just comes down to personal preference, then; there's been enough weird stuff around the Sol system taking specifically human things to random spots of the galaxy officially as it is, it's silly to have another right there when it's not necessary. And I also don't see where in WNMHGB it was said that the ship was recorded lost shortly after launch? I can't find any mention at all of how long the Valiant had been out before being declared lost.

Besides, this is the Treklit forum, and doesn't it fit better with Valiant's presentation of things if you assume it was a couple decades later?

 

[Timo]

I guess the problem is that unlike Friedman, Kirk isn't an expert on all things Valiant - which is why, when hearing her call letters in the far reaches of the galaxy, he has to dig up the pertinent information from a source. And it's that source that tells him that the ship "has been missing for over two centuries", the exact wording.

Why would that source mistakenly report the ship as "having been missing" before her launch or even her construction? (I guess the builders could have been a bit careless, but...)

OTOH, even if the ship were launched 200+ years before the episode as stated, but factually fell into a wormhole or whatnot only several decades into her mission, why would Kirk's source report her as missing since 200+ years rather than since the factual deviation from flight plan?

The one way to have a decades-long mission end in wormhole displacement is to have the Valiant launch long before the discovery of warp drive. If she has sublight engines as good as Khan, she might be well outside Sol or its immediate neighborhood in 20-30 years. If she has better engines (supposedly introduced in 2018), all the better. The need to assume a wormhole-style anomaly within the limits of Sol system goes away, then. Although why we would wish for this to happen when we know such anomalies are there, I don't know. Rather, we might blame every incident from "One Little Step" to TMP to "The Royale" to "Where No Man" and for all we care "The Changeling" on one and the same phenomenon - the VOY gravity ellipsis, mistaken for a black hole in the 1970s. This is the lit forum, after all - the smaller the universe, the better, right?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jinn]

OTOH, even if the ship were launched 200+ years before the episode as stated, but factually fell into a wormhole or whatnot only several decades into her mission, why would Kirk's source report her as missing since 200+ years rather than since the factual deviation from flight plan?

Time travel?

 

[Idran]

Rather, we might blame every incident from "One Little Step" to TMP to "The Royale" to "Where No Man" and for all we care "The Changeling" on one and the same phenomenon - the VOY gravity ellipsis, mistaken for a black hole in the 1970s. This is the lit forum, after all - the smaller the universe, the better, right?

Hahaha, you know, I'm almost tempted to honestly go with that.