Trek Books Set in TOS Movie Era?

[Damian]

That's one of the things that annoyed me; it also seemed (to me) to be a rule that was inconsistently applied.





Apparently, my memory latched onto the general idea of "TNG is 100 years after TOS" and made it fact. Thank you and @Damian for correcting me on the date of TNG's first season.

Well 100 years is not far off. Considering the first year of the 5 year mission is generally considered 2265 and TNG started 2364. It'd be 101 years after the start of the 5 year mission. But I don't believe that's why they picked 2364 for TNG, more just a coincidence probably.

 

[Damian]

I mean 99 years. Duh. Just proving I'm not as smart as Christopher

 

[Christopher]

Apparently, my memory latched onto the general idea of "TNG is 100 years after TOS" and made it fact. Thank you and @Damian for correcting me on the date of TNG's first season.

In fact, it's worth remembering that the dates for TOS weren't actually, formally pegged as 2266-69 until the first edition of the Chronology came out in 1993, a good five years after "The Neutral Zone." As I've mentioned elsewhere, before then, there were two rival theories in fandom of when TOS took place -- the Spaceflight Chronology scheme, which put TOS in about 2208-10 (to reconcile with the "200 years" references in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed") and was occasionally alluded to in Pocket novels (most explicitly in Final Frontier), and the Geoffrey Mandel/Doug Drexler scheme used in Star Trek Maps and several fan reference works, which put TOS in 2261-3. Once "The Neutral Zone" came along and put TNG in 2364, it ruled out the SFC scheme (since McCoy was only 137 in "Encounter at Farpoint") and required something close to the Mandel/Drexler scheme to be correct. Evidently the Okudas just decided to set TOS exactly 300 years after it aired for simplicity's sake, and we got the modern scheme. But that's only been the definitive dating of TOS for the past 25 years.

 

[Damian]

In fact, it's worth remembering that the dates for TOS weren't actually, formally pegged as 2266-69 until the first edition of the Chronology came out in 1993, a good five years after "The Neutral Zone." As I've mentioned elsewhere, before then, there were two rival theories in fandom of when TOS took place -- the Spaceflight Chronology scheme, which put TOS in about 2208-10 (to reconcile with the "200 years" references in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Space Seed") and was occasionally alluded to in Pocket novels (most explicitly in Final Frontier), and the Geoffrey Mandel/Doug Drexler scheme used in Star Trek Maps and several fan reference works, which put TOS in 2261-3. Once "The Neutral Zone" came along and put TNG in 2364, it ruled out the SFC scheme (since McCoy was only 137 in "Encounter at Farpoint") and required something close to the Mandel/Drexler scheme to be correct. Evidently the Okudas just decided to set TOS exactly 300 years after it aired for simplicity's sake, and we got the modern scheme. But that's only been the definitive dating of TOS for the past 25 years.

Yeah, I remember seeing some of that. In the early days Star Trek wasn't really all that consistent, though when Kirk mentions 200 years ought to be just about right in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" it's probably just off hand. I didn't read much into that.

But even in TWOK Khan mentions he reigned 200 years before that, which is harder to reconcile, and before that in TMP Decker says Voyager 6 was launched over 300 years ago from then, making it even more difficult to reconcile (esp since TWOK is later so it should be more years, not less since both were in the 20th century).

Isn't the Chronology where Margaret Wander Bonanno got her information for her prelude to Strangers from the Sky (with all the information about the UNSS Icarus, the founding of the Federation and so forth). Or was that something other?

 

[Christopher]

Isn't the Chronology where Margaret Wander Bonanno got her information for her prelude to Strangers from the Sky (with all the information about the UNSS Icarus, the founding of the Federation and so forth). Or was that something other?

If you mean the 1980 Spaceflight Chronology, yes. It's also where The Final Reflection got its historical elements from.

But the point is, nobody really knows where "The Neutral Zone" got 2364 from. It wasn't based on being a century after TOS, since the date of TOS hadn't yet been decided on at the time. And "Encounter at Farpoint" had earlier had Data say he was "Class of '78" at the Academy, which isn't really reconcilable with anything before or since.

Honestly, I've often suspected that the only reason the 2364 date was given in "The Neutral Zone" was because that episode was made during the '88 writers' strike and had to be shot from an unrevised first draft script. Roddenberry preferred to keep the date vague, so I suspect that that date might've been dropped if the script had been revised, and may have just been a placeholder anyway.

 

[Damian]

If you mean the 1980 Spaceflight Chronology, yes. It's also where The Final Reflection got its historical elements from.

But the point is, nobody really knows where "The Neutral Zone" got 2364 from. It wasn't based on being a century after TOS, since the date of TOS hadn't yet been decided on at the time. And "Encounter at Farpoint" had earlier had Data say he was "Class of '78" at the Academy, which isn't really reconcilable with anything before or since.

Honestly, I've often suspected that the only reason the 2364 date was given in "The Neutral Zone" was because that episode was made during the '88 writers' strike and had to be shot from an unrevised first draft script. Roddenberry preferred to keep the date vague, so I suspect that that date might've been dropped if the script had been revised, and may have just been a placeholder anyway.

I always wondered why Rodenberry wanted to keep the date vague. Early on, during the original series, sure. I can see someone wanting to keep their options open. But by the time TNG came out, we already knew quite a bit (like the original series was in the 23rd century). By then it made sense to place the series in some sort of historical context.

The dates we have now make sense for the most part, though there are some discrepancies (Data's comment, unless Class of '78 wasn't necessarily a year, but I can't fathom what else it could be).

2364 was probably an educated guess. They already said it was 78 years later (from something, though TVH does establish Kirk is from the late 23rd century at least when he tells all to Gillian) so it would be the mid to latter half of the 24th century. And I guess they didn't want to make it a less obvious year, like 2360 starting a decade. 2364 is pretty random.

As an aside, speaking of TMP I wonder why Rodenberry used Voyager 6, instead of say Voyager 2? I don't remember seeing any plans for any further Voyager missions. It always seemed odd that he picked something from history that could never be true

 

[Christopher]

I always wondered why Rodenberry wanted to keep the date vague.

Because science fiction is notoriously bad at predicting the rate of scientific and technological progress, being either way too optimistic about how quickly things will progress (e.g. interstellar travel by the 1990s) or way too conservative about the pace of change (e.g. vacuum tubes and punch cards still being used a million years in the future). So he figured it was best to keep things non-specific.

But by the time TNG came out, we already knew quite a bit (like the original series was in the 23rd century). By then it made sense to place the series in some sort of historical context.

Maybe it was just habit by that point. Plus it's often a good idea in series TV to be kind of vague about the passage of time so you don't run into contradictions about anniversaries, the interval between original and sequel episodes, etc. (For instance, "Day of the Dove" saying the peace treaty has held for 3 years even though it aired only a bit over a year and a half after "Errand of Mercy.")

2364 was probably an educated guess. They already said it was 78 years later (from something, though TVH does establish Kirk is from the late 23rd century at least when he tells all to Gillian) so it would be the mid to latter half of the 24th century.

But you're still making the assumption that they started from an established TOS date and projected forward. My point is that it was the other way around. When "The Neutral Zone" was written, the date for TOS had not yet been established and could've been anywhere from the 2200s to the 2260s. If anything, the SFC's 2200s dating was the more popular one. It was because "The Neutral Zone" chose the 2364 date that we ended up with TOS having to be in the 2260s, ruling out the SFC scheme. (My own chronology was roughly SFC-based at the time, and as soon as Data said "2364," my heart sank as I realized I'd have to redo the whole thing.)

As an aside, speaking of TMP I wonder why Rodenberry used Voyager 6, instead of say Voyager 2? I don't remember seeing any plans for any further Voyager missions.

The script would've been written only 1-2 years after Voyager 1 & 2 launched, and other space probe series like Mariner and Pioneer had had more than 10 members each. So there was every reason to expect that there might be more in the years ahead -- and the screenwriters picked a number far enough ahead that the story wouldn't be dated too quickly, or so they thought. According to this, there actually were plans for a third and possibly a fourth Voyager probe, but the space program suffered budget cuts in the late '70s.

And it was Harold Livingston, not Roddenberrry, who first chose a Voyager-series probe. In his first-draft script for "In Thy Image," it was Voyager 18. (Alan Dean Foster's story outline had gone with Pioneer 10, which actually existed.)

It always seemed odd that he picked something from history that could never be true

It's not odd at all, because they were telling fiction, so they knew going in that none of it would ever be true. The purpose of science fiction is not to predict the actual future -- that's obviously impossible. Every SF work is going to be "disproven" eventually. It's just about spinning believable-sounding fantasies about things that could conjecturally happen. The makers of TOS didn't actually believe there were orbital nukes being launched in 1968 or that there'd be an Earth-Saturn probe manned by Shaun Geoffrey Christopher or that there'd be cryogenic sleeper ships by the 1990s. But it didn't matter what would happen in real life, because they were building their own fictional future for the show.

 

[Damian]

But you're still making the assumption that they started from an established TOS date and projected forward. My point is that it was the other way around. When "The Neutral Zone" was written, the date for TOS had not yet been established and could've been anywhere from the 2200s to the 2260s.

What I meant is by the time that episode was written TVH was already released and in that movie Kirk had told Gillian that he comes from the late 23rd century. I thought maybe they used that as a rough starting point when picking 2364, basically picking a date that would fit that statement and roughly match the 78 years they said in promotional materials before the show was released.

Because science fiction is notoriously bad at predicting the rate of scientific and technological progress, being either way too optimistic about how quickly things will progress

Yeah, and I get that. I just thought the 23rd century was far enough away that would not be as huge an issue. Granted the shows look like a product of their times in many cases, but usually people give them artistic license when it comes to things like production design. The science of Star Trek was always pretty good, or as good as it could be in a SF world.

Plus it's often a good idea in series TV to be kind of vague about the passage of time so you don't run into contradictions about anniversaries, the interval between original and sequel episodes, etc.

You know, though, I would argue had they actually picked a year Star Trek started (say 2265 just because that's what we think today), then a lot of that maybe wouldn't have been an issue. You could establish something like Errand of Mercy as 2266 and Day of the Dove as 2268 and know it was 2 years later. By keeping it vague I thought they actually caused some contradictions down the road. The writer of Day of the Dove didn't really know when Errand of Mercy was in the timeline so they made something up that ended up later being incorrect. Had they known the year that would have been avoided.

The script would've been written only 1-2 years after Voyager 1 & 2 launched, and other space probe series like Mariner and Pioneer had had more than 10 members each. So there was every reason to expect that there might be more in the years ahead -- and the screenwriters picked a number far enough ahead that the story wouldn't be dated too quickly, or so they thought.

It's not odd at all, because they were telling fiction, so they knew going in that none of it would ever be true.

Ok, true enough. It's just I never heard of any plans for Voyager 6. I know they were telling fiction but Star Trek tried to keep as much as possible fact and science based. Had they chosen Voyager 1 or 2, then it 'could' happen. They are headed (or in) interstellar space so who knows .

It does sadden me in a way. When I think of a movie like 2001 and how far they thought we'd be along by that point back in 1968. And you know, the advances we were making in the 1960s I could see why they would think that. Instead it's 2018 and we're still trying to get back on track with just getting something on the moon. We're no where near where we frankly should be. I have to think President Kennedy didn't think we'd stop with just getting to the moon. I always thought he'd figured that would be a starting point, not the end point.

 

[Damian]

I should clarify by giving artistic license to production design only in the sense that it looks like it was made when it was because, well it was. Star Trek looks like the 60's in a lot of ways because it was made in the 60's. Obviously people take issues with other aspects of production design, like the nu-Klingon look in Discovery. But I think that's a separate sort of thing. I just wanted to throw that out there because I didn't mean to suggest people don't question production design, just that one aspect usually.

 

[Dayton Ward]

There’s another piece of the puzzle that (likely) went toward placing TOS.

Along with the 2364 reference for TNG season 1, there’s also a bit in season 3’s “Sarek,” where Picard mentions that Sarek is 202 years old.

If we go with the notion that TNG season 3 is set in 2366 (the one season = one year idea not getting any real traction until a 1st season Voyager episode - the name of which escapes me at the moment - gives the current year as 2371), then “Sarek” takes place approximately 100 years after the season 2 TOS episode “Journey to Babel,” in which McCoy mentions that Sarek is 102 years old.

So, the data points in “Journey to Babel (retroactively),” “The Neutral Zone,” and “Sarek” appear to form the tripod upon which the entire Trek chronology rests.

 

[Christopher]

What I meant is by the time that episode was written TVH was already released and in that movie Kirk had told Gillian that he comes from the late 23rd century. I thought maybe they used that as a rough starting point when picking 2364, basically picking a date that would fit that statement and roughly match the 78 years they said in promotional materials before the show was released.

Oh, I'd forgotten he specified "late." I guess that's plausible. And I guess that already ruled out the SFC scheme at the time, although I was evidently still resisting or in denial about that until "The Neutral Zone" locked it down.

Yeah, and I get that. I just thought the 23rd century was far enough away that would not be as huge an issue.

But you see, it goes both ways. Sometimes the rate of progress goes far faster than science fiction predicts -- for instance, look at the small communications box you carry around with you today in 2018 and how much more advanced it is than the communicators they carry around 250 years later in TOS. So putting something too far in the future can be as big a problem as putting it too close to the present. Hence Roddenberry's original desire to keep it as vague as possible. As he wrote in the original series prospectus, "It could be 1995 or maybe even 2995."

You know, though, I would argue had they actually picked a year Star Trek started (say 2265 just because that's what we think today), then a lot of that maybe wouldn't have been an issue. You could establish something like Errand of Mercy as 2266 and Day of the Dove as 2268 and know it was 2 years later. By keeping it vague I thought they actually caused some contradictions down the road.

What I mean is, there are times when storytellers may need an interval to be longer in-story than it actually has been in reality (like when an infant is fast-forwarded to toddler age to avoid the problems of working with babies), or at least different than it was in reality (like if you want to do an episode about a birthday or anniversary and can't wait until the real interval elapses). It's not just about getting the "facts" straight, because the "facts" are just artificial constructs that exist to serve the needs of the narrative. The story comes first. So it's not about avoiding contradictions. That's a concern of observers cataloguing the work, not a priority for the storytellers creating the work. It's about having the latitude to take the story wherever it needs to go and not be artificially hamstrung by superficial details like calendar dates.

I mean, even after Trek established firm calendar dates, there were times when they just ignored them for the sake of the story. Molly O'Brien was 3 years old in "Rascals," airing just 13 months after the character's birth. DS9: "Second Sight" claimed to be the fourth anniversary of Wolf 359, but it aired only three years and two months later (and the stardate is way too early too). It actually would've served them better if they'd remained vague about the dates, so they would've had the flexibility for story time to disagree with real time when it needed to.

The writer of Day of the Dove didn't really know when Errand of Mercy was in the timeline so they made something up that ended up later being incorrect. Had they known the year that would have been avoided.

Or, Jerome Bixby chose "three years" deliberately because it fit the needs of the scene better. Kang was expressing outrage that Kirk had (so he thought) brazenly violated a treaty that the Klingons had honored since it was signed. Saying the treaty has held for three years is more impressive and carries more weight than saying it's held for slightly more than one year. The story comes first. Surface details like calendar dates serve the story, not the other way around.

Ok, true enough. It's just I never heard of any plans for Voyager 6. I know they were telling fiction but Star Trek tried to keep as much as possible fact and science based. Had they chosen Voyager 1 or 2, then it 'could' happen. They are headed (or in) interstellar space so who knows .

I'm sorry, but this is a thoroughly bizarre objection. There were no real plans for an Earth-Saturn probe or an interplanetary sleeper ship either. There didn't need to be. This is fiction. That means they make stuff up. That's the whole point!

I mean, you might as well object that they established a Third World War when reality was only up to the Second. They didn't "know" there'd be a third one, but the whole point of speculative fiction is to speculate. At the time, it was reasonable to believe that there could be a WWIII; indeed, it was widely taken for granted that there probably would be a global nuclear war by the end of the century. They didn't need to know it as a fact, because the entire purpose of the genre is to conjecture about potential futures.

It does sadden me in a way. When I think of a movie like 2001 and how far they thought we'd be along by that point back in 1968. And you know, the advances we were making in the 1960s I could see why they would think that. Instead it's 2018 and we're still trying to get back on track with just getting something on the moon. We're no where near where we frankly should be. I have to think President Kennedy didn't think we'd stop with just getting to the moon. I always thought he'd figured that would be a starting point, not the end point.

The problem is, the Moon landings were never really about exploration. They were about politics and propaganda and the Cold War. Developing rockets that could reach the Moon was actually about developing missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to the enemy. Reaching the Moon first was a way of saying to the enemy, "We have bigger rockets than you do so we can kill you before you kill us." Sure, the folks at NASA who were actually doing it were no doubt sincere about "We came in peace for all Mankind," but the politicians funding the program were another matter. Once the military and propagandistic goal of upstaging the Soviets was achieved, there was no political will to keep pouring money into pure science, and no understanding of the great material benefits that could come from asteroid mining, solar power satellites, and a permanent human presence in space.

There’s another piece of the puzzle that (likely) went toward placing TOS.

Along with the 2364 reference for TNG season 1, there’s also a bit in season 3’s Sarek, where Picard mentions that Sarek is 202 years old.

If we go with the notion that TNG season 3 is set in 2366 (the one season = one year idea not getting any real traction until a 2st season Voyager episode gives the current year as 2371), then “Sarek” takes place approximately 100 years after the season 2 TOS episode “Journey to Babel,” in which McCoy mentions that Sarek is 102 years old.

So, “Journey to Babel,” “The Neutral Zone,” and “Sarek” appears to form the tripod upon which the entire Trek chronology rests.

Oh, yes, good point. That did pretty much lock it down.

 

[Stevil2001]

That was a sketchy estimate even at the time. First off, it seemed like an attempt to preclude the animated series from being counted, since it required the 5YM to end just after season 3. It also required season 3 to end less than halfway through 2269 in order for 2.5 years later to still be in 2271, and that never seemed credible to me. I never "accepted" that estimate for TMP any more than I accepted the book's estimates for the later movies.

I know all this; I'm just saying it's context for Carey's date for New Earth. These days, 2272 is a flat-out impossible date for that series, but when the book was published, it was placing it a year after TMP. (I agree with you and the Timeliners, though, that the book does not remotely feel like it's set a year after TMP.)

 

[Christopher]

I know all this; I'm just saying it's context for Carey's date for New Earth. These days, 2272 is a flat-out impossible date for that series, but when the book was published, it was placing it a year after TMP. (I agree with you and the Timeliners, though, that the book does not remotely feel like it's set a year after TMP.)

Well, yeah, they were just going by what the Chronology said, because that's what the tie-ins were required to do unless later canon overwrote it. (Which is why I was able to put TMP in 2273 in Ex Machina -- because that was after "Q2" had locked in 2270 as the end of the 5YM.)

 

[Damian]

But you see, it goes both ways. Sometimes the rate of progress goes far faster than science fiction predicts -- for instance, look at the small communications box you carry around with you today in 2018 and how much more advanced it is than the communicators they carry around 250 years later in TOS.

True, and that can't be helped. In Enterprise they used similar communicators. In story I just figured it maybe had something to do with subspace communication that required that sort of communicator.

What I mean is, there are times when storytellers may need an interval to be longer in-story than it actually has been in reality

I can see that in some cases. But others it doesn't seem like it would matter. Like Day of the Dove being 2 or 3 years after Errand of Mercy. I'm not really sure what difference it would have made to the story. Of course it's possible Errand of Mercy was early 2266 and Day of the Dove late 2268 making it almost 3 years. It's just in some cases it probably would not have mattered and the episode writer may have been happy to use the existing time frame if they were given one.

I'm sorry, but this is a thoroughly bizarre objection. There were no real plans for an Earth-Saturn probe or an interplanetary sleeper ship either. There didn't need to be. This is fiction. That means they make stuff up. That's the whole point!

It's different with something that is written about decades in the future (at least at the time it was written). It's just when you're talking about things that are in the near future, like the Voyager probes, I thought they'd want to try to make it a bit more realistic. In a way it would have been kind of cool if they picked Voyager 2 since that was an actual probe, and TMP being almost 300 years later (despite Decker saying over 300 years--he was just a bit excited maybe), it 'could' happen. The 6 wasn't even used in V'Ger's name for itself so that wouldn't have even mattered.

The whole Khan from the 1990's thing though, that was written back in the 60's. I give a lot more leeway to someone writing something that takes place decades later. Plus, I mean, Greg Cox already told us how it actually did occur, can't pull the wool over his eyes . But in all seriousness, I just feel if you are depicting something in the very near future, I'd think you'd want to try to be a bit more factual. That's the difference to me.

But frankly, that is a minor thing for me, something I think about from time to time, but TMP is my personal favorite Star Trek film, so it's obviously not something that ruins it for me.

The problem is, the Moon landings were never really about exploration. They were about politics and propaganda and the Cold War.

Yeah, I know. It just seemed to me that things would just continue apace once that was achieved. Now we in the US are in a situation where China and Russia may overtake us in space and now we have to play catch up. It was a bit short sighted of the politicians to sort of give up on space exploration if they want to think in those terms. It's sort of embarrassing I think that we have to hitch a ride with the Russians to even get to space now.

 

[Damian]

(the one season = one year idea not getting any real traction until a 1st season Voyager episode - the name of which escapes me at the moment - gives the current year as 2371),

That reminded me of something from the 3rd season episode "Future's End" because I remember in that episode something was mentioned about what year Voyager was from, so I looked it up on Memory Alpha and found the below quote from when Starling was talking to Janeway--

"USS Voyager, Intrepid-class, much bigger than I expected and much less advanced. Says here your ship was launched in the year...2371? You're from the 24th century? And here all this time I thought you were from the 29th. Looks like I have the home field advantage."

 

[Christopher]

It's different with something that is written about decades in the future (at least at the time it was written). It's just when you're talking about things that are in the near future, like the Voyager probes, I thought they'd want to try to make it a bit more realistic.

Again: Nobody in 1978-9 would've found it remotely unrealistic that there could be more Voyager probes. If anything, they would've probably thought the opposite. There were over ten Mariner probes and Pioneer probes, and a whole bunch of Russian Luna and Venera probes. So the idea of a probe series stopping at a measly two would've seemed ridiculous at the time, in defiance of all precedent. They'd lived through two decades of a relentless, active space race, and had no idea that the brakes were about to be put on by budget cuts. So they would've assumed that space exploration would continue at the same rate as before. They would've had no reason to think otherwise, because they didn't have your after-the-fact knowledge of what actually happened. It's always a mistake to assume that the way you see things is the same way people in the past saw them.

But in all seriousness, I just feel if you are depicting something in the very near future, I'd think you'd want to try to be a bit more factual. That's the difference to me.

But why? Stories in the present aren't required to be "factual." They make up imaginary people, imaginary cities, imaginary countries and political leaders, and imaginary world events and crises and disasters all the time. There's good reason to avoid telling stories about real things, because doing so runs the risk of legal entanglements as well as conflicts with reality. You want to keep your distance from real things so that you have the freedom to tell your story. Heck, The West Wing not only had a fictional US president dealing with crises in fictional foreign countries, it even displaced the election cycle by two years.

And stories set in the past aren't required to be factual either. They tend to be built around real historical events, but populate them with imaginary characters and reinterpret the facts and chronology of events to suit the needs of their stories. Even movies about well-known historical events, like the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral or the Untouchables' battle with Al Capone, are usually based more on the myths that have grown up around them than on the strict historical facts.

After all, fiction is not trying to be real. Realism is not the same thing as reality. It's all pretend, and that's all it's meant to be. If you tell your pretend story in a way that gives it a realistic flavor, fine, but it's not trying to convince anyone it's actually true, because that would be fraud, not fiction. If you use elements of reality in your story, that's not an end in itself; it's just a means to the end of telling the story you want to tell.

Now we in the US are in a situation where China and Russia may overtake us in space and now we have to play catch up. It was a bit short sighted of the politicians to sort of give up on space exploration if they want to think in those terms. It's sort of embarrassing I think that we have to hitch a ride with the Russians to even get to space now.

Nationalism is a ludicrous and petty mentality in the context of humanity's expansion into space. It doesn't matter who gets us there as long as we get there. If we can establish permanent human habitation in space, then we preserve our species's survival for potentially millions of years to come regardless of what disasters may befall the Earth. Our descendants won't remember or care which national flag was painted on the ships that did it, because nations are ephemeral constructs on the grand scale of time. All that matters is that somebody gets us out there for keeps.

And of course it probably won't be national governments alone that get us out there -- it'll be a partnership between government and private industry. History shows that the settlement and development of a frontier never really takes off until that kind of partnership emerges, with the latter taking the lead in developing the profit potential of the frontier, bearing the risk that a government alone isn't willing to take. We saw this with the fur trade in North America, the East India Companies in Asia, and elsewhere. We can now see the beginnings of the new space race, the real one, driven by private businesses pursuing profit opportunities like asteroid mining and space tourism. Once space becomes profitable, that's when colonization will really take off.

 

[Damian]

Nationalism is a ludicrous and petty mentality in the context of humanity's expansion into space.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But let's be honest. China and Russia aren't trying to beat us in the space race for altruistic reasons. It would behoove the United States to make sure it keeps apace for it's own protection. After all, we wouldn't want foreign governments interfering with our satellites and that sort of thing. The nice thing about space exploration, whatever the basic reason may be, is that good, scientific research and exploration will occur as a result. Personally I think we, as a species and not just Americans, are at our best when we are trying to expand our knowledge. Now the basic reasons may not always be the best, but what happens as a result can lead to some good.

And of course it probably won't be national governments alone that get us out there -- it'll be a partnership between government and private industry.

Absolutely. I think it's great private industry is taking a part. I think that should have started a long time ago. Even 2001 depicted private industry heavily involved in space. I get why government may need to get the ball rolling, but there needs to be a role for private industry.

But why? Stories in the present aren't required to be "factual." They make up imaginary people, imaginary cities, imaginary countries and political leaders, and imaginary world events and crises and disasters all the time.

All right, That's all true. It just seemed Star Trek tried to inject some factual basis into their stories and I just thought it would have been nice if it was an actual probe, like Voyager 2. It would have been an interesting twist is all. I was probably making a bigger deal of it then it is. It was just something that came to mind. It doesn't in any way detract from my enjoyment of TMP though.

 

[Christopher]

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But let's be honest. China and Russia aren't trying to beat us in the space race for altruistic reasons. It would behoove the United States to make sure it keeps apace for it's own protection.

None of that will matter a thousand years from now. Space colonization is about ensuring the survival of humanity as a species. Heck, as I said, the thing that's going to get us back into space for good is the pursuit of profit. It's going to be people trying to get rich. That's as petty and selfish a motive as any political ideology. But our starfaring descendants won't care, as long as it works.

All right, That's all true. It just seemed Star Trek tried to inject some factual basis into their stories and I just thought it would have been nice if it was an actual probe, like Voyager 2. It would have been an interesting twist is all.

The Voyager series actually existed. The model they used in the movie was a real mock-up on loan from JPL. It seems pretty fact-based to me. More so than Nomad, certainly.

 

[tomswift2002]

That reminded me of something from the 3rd season episode "Future's End" because I remember in that episode something was mentioned about what year Voyager was from, so I looked it up on Memory Alpha and found the below quote from when Starling was talking to Janeway--

"USS Voyager, Intrepid-class, much bigger than I expected and much less advanced. Says here your ship was launched in the year...2371? You're from the 24th century? And here all this time I thought you were from the 29th. Looks like I have the home field advantage."

And in the Season 2 episode with the Caretaker’s mate it was established that that episode was only 8 months after “Caretaker” and Voyager’s launch.

But with IV, the 1986 date also seems to come from TV ads and other promotional material, and Leonard Nimoy.

 

[Christopher]

But with IV, the 1986 date also seems to come from TV ads and other promotional material, and Leonard Nimoy.

Not really. The "Stardate: 1986" ads were obviously not meant to be taken literally, since of course 1986 is not a stardate. It was largely just a cutesy way of saying that the movie was coming out in that year. And Nimoy just said the characters were coming back to "today," which could just generally mean the present era.

More importantly, though, none of it counts because it wasn't stated in the actual movie. The only thing that matters for dating the story is what's in the story itself, and there's no explicit data in the film to lock it down to 1986, just to a general mid- to late 1980s setting. Granted, there's no reason it couldn't be in 1986, and that's the simplest assumption to make, but neither is there any reason that it couldn't happen a couple of years earlier or later.