Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by F. King Daniel, May 18, 2017.
Warning issued for trolling - you can't go from thread to thread baiting people.
I have to admit that I am very interested to see how the writers tap existing continuity for this time period. Pike's Five Year Missions are there, already very lightly explored. A novel or two, plenty of sub-entries/chapters from multiple stories....the Early Voyages comics from Marvel.....should be fun to see how litverse mines the existing works.
That's not so bad then. Hook 'em then reel 'em in...
Are they, though? If you think about it, we have canonical evidence for exactly one five-year mission, the one undertaken by the Enterprise from 2266-70. Not only does it make no sense to assume that all starship missions have the same duration, there's absolutely zero onscreen mention of any other five-year missions in the entire history of the Trek universe. So for all we know, that may have been the only one. At least, it seems it must've been an atypical or novel kind of mission, or the fact that it lasted five years wouldn't be seen as worthy of comment. Indeed, outside of opening narration (which doesn't really count), the closest TOS ever came to mentioning the 5YM was in "The Mark of Gideon," when Kirk said the ship had enough food for a crew of 430 for 5 years. Other than that, there are only two direct canonical mentions of the 5YM -- in TMP, when Kirk cites "my five years out there" as evidence of his superior experience, and in VGR: "Q2," when Icheb reports on Kirk's "historic five-year mission." Both those mentions imply that there was something special or at least unusual about a mission of such duration. At least, the "Gideon" line suggests that the duration was specific to the crew size and resources of the Enterprise at that time -- and we know the ship had a smaller crew in Pike's time.
This was made explicit in the Kelvin Timeline in Into Darkness -- the conversation between Kirk and Spock before their meeting with Pike establishes that five-year deep space exploration missions are a "new program" as of 2259. Granted, it's a different history, but not completely different. We can't rule out the possibility that the program was relatively new in the Prime timeline as well.
So all we really know is that Pike commanded the Enterprise for over 11 years. We don't know whether his command was broken down into 5-year tours or 3-year tours or a mix of tours of different durations or what.
I think what he meant was that the time in which the Enterprise was under Pike's command was lightly explored. While he did summarize it as being two five year missions, that was just shorthand and irrelevant to his main point. But yes, by all means, use this one inaccuracy as an invitation to post a meandering look at the lack of evidence for missions broken down into a period of five years, if that's what you enjoy.
For the life of my I can't find the link to the rules on this forum - so here's the run down on warnings and bans:
2 warnings in a year = One day off
4 warnings in a year = One week off
6 warnings in a year = One month off
8 warnings in a year = Three months off
10 warnings TOTAL (entire time here, not just in a year) = Permanent Ban
Please stop posting simply to try and annoy Christopher or bait him into an argument. I've already warned you for trolling once. i will do it again if you do not stop.
To clarify, what I'm trying to do is to bait him into recognizing the absurdity of his own manner of expression on one specific occasion only, and the way in which that post might itself might be considered trolling. That's all. I'm not looking for a miracle in self-awareness here. After he apologizes he can continue flapping around these boards picking at people's posts like the world's most pathetic vulture until the sun goes out for all I care.
I'm sorry if this is upsetting or bothersome to anyone else. I've never had extensive interactions with a mod in all my years on the internet, but you are doing a very good job and this much, at least, has been a positive experience.
Christopher's post only seems like trolling to you because you're annoyed by it, to everyone else it's just a normal style of post from Christopher who is very particular about language and science, and likes to share his knowledge.
Let's all move on and get back to TrekLit
Well, I agree that it is a matter of perspective. I do recognize that what Christopher said is incredibly typical of Christopher's posts in general.
I would suggest that the length of his tenure, the prolific nature of his posting, and his status as a published Star Trek author is perhaps blinding the moderators in general to his trollish behavior. I like the way you've summarized Christopher's personality; it evokes a teacher's fondness for a child who continually acts out in class. But at some point, "Oh, that's just his way," is not an excuse to fail to recognize some societal norms. I'm obviously acting out, I'm being warned, and that is the way it should be--but the system should work both ways.
I'm not even seeing what the issue is here. All I see is Christopher and TalonCard having a discussion. And I've see plenty of discussions on here in the past with Christopher and plenty of other folk. Christopher has always had his opinions, and people may agree or disagree with him, but it always stays civil, just as this conversation has.
I've been away from the trekbbs for a while, but in the last couple of days I've been back, I've noticed a huge change in the atmosphere here. People seem a lot quicker to judge others and try to start things for no reason. Not sure I'm liking it.
How interesting, you assume individuals are quicker to jump to conclusions than in the past by jumping to a conclusion and assuming those individuals intents behind what they say.
I did one comparing "The Cage" and what we see in the DSC trailer.
Maybe in those three years, the Asgard gave them a massive tech upgrade.
Or in the fifty-odd years since the Cage was made, special effects has moved on and replicating what was made then would alienate vastly more viewers than the small handful of hardcore Luddites clinging to the past.
Despite this I am perfectly fine, in my own fandom, assuming that there may have been other five year missions out there. Many of the writers made this very assumption in the 1980s novels when people were not sure when the chronological placement of STMP would be. The assumption was Kirk commanded two five year missions, at least with some of those novels.
Also, I like to use Okuda as a reference and at least in the first version of the chronology his fandom allowed the issue as well. On page 31 he explores the idea that April commanded a FYM starting in 2245. On page 34 he does it again, three different times, in fact. On page 36 he notes when Pikes first FYM could have ended, and and on page 37 he notes when the 2nd one could have ended in 2261. So, the idea of other FYM is out there, regardless. And I know some of Okuda's assumptions are wrong, but still...it is a good source.
And even if the Enterprise FYM under Kirk is unique.....
Yes, my point was the overall amount of information that has been established in the comics and novels....hopefully in future stories, small nuggets of their existence make there way into Christopher's and other writer's stories. Peace.
Sure, there could've been. But isn't it logical to assume they weren't the only mission profile? A 5-year tour of deep-space exploration and patrol is surely just one of the many different kinds of missions that Starfleet vessels would need to undertake. There would undoubtedly be mission profiles of shorter duration, or possibly open-ended ones with no set duration. There would have to be. Sending a ship out for five whole years is a huge undertaking -- heck, that's why they called the show Star Trek, because a trek is a really massive, extended journey or operation. It only stands to reason that there are other, less extreme types of starship mission out there.
Indeed, we've seen the Enterprise on several. According to The Making of Star Trek, Kirk had already captained the ship for four years as of the second season. Since I doubt they intended to end the show after three years, given the choice, that means that he was its captain for at least a year or two before the 5YM started. And this is consistent with "Where No Man Has Gone Before." A dedicated mission to probe to the edge of the galaxy and beyond is something that would take months, just considering travel time alone. It's unlikely to be just one more assignment within a generalized 5-year survey and patrol tour; it stands apart as a separate "trek" of its own. So it looks as if the Enterprise under Kirk was assigned to one or more short-term missions before it began its dedicated 5-year tour. (Again, aligning with the Kelvin Timeline, where Kirk began his 5-year mission two years after being given command.)
After TOS, we don't know exactly what happened between TMP and TWOK, but we do know that by TWOK, the Enterprise was serving in an apparently open-ended capacity as a training vessel -- again proving the existence of starship mission profiles other than 5-year deep-survey tours. And the E-A seemed to be assigned to individual missions as needed. The narrations in the movies referred to the ship's "ongoing mission," not defined by a specific duration.
No novel ever actually said that. That's an interpretation some fans (including myself) have made after the fact. There were some novels that established the pre-TMP period lasted several years longer than you'd think, but they never explicitly came out and said that the ship was specifically on a "second five-year mission," rather than the mission just being open-ended. That's just a later fan theory to make sense of those anomalous time references.
Yes, I know it is, which is exactly why I think it's important to offer a countervailing view. Fandom tends to jump to the conclusion that all missions must be 5-year missions, and I'm pointing out the flaws in that assumption. Certainly 5-year surveys could be one standard mission profile, but it is simply nonsensical to assume that every single starship mission ever has to be 5 years in duration, both from a common-sense standpoint and given that we have explicit evidence to the contrary. It's a failure of imagination to ignore other possible mission lengths and types.
What I've suggested in two or three of my novels is that five years is the recommended maximum tour duration for a Constitution-class vessel before it needs to be called in for refitting and resupply. Connies could be sent on missions of various different durations, but five years is the longest they can reasonably withstand, so that's why the longest-term mission profile, an extended tour of deep-space exploration, patrol, and colony support, is limited to a maximum of five years, though it could always be cut short for various reasons (certainly we saw several Connies' missions cut violently short in TOS). And it could even be extended beyond the recommended 5 years if the ship and crew were in condition to handle it (my books have Kirk pushing for an extension beyond 5 years but not getting it). That fits with the "Mark of Gideon" line about the ship having a 5-year supply of food aboard. And I think it works as a good compromise position -- the 5-year mission profile is a standard benchmark for Connies, but it's more a recommendation than an absolute guarantee, and it's just one of many possible mission types out there.
I guess I just don't feel that level of passion about acknowledging that there were other missions beyond the FYM frame work. Its kind of a given for me, at least. I didn't represent it as a blanket statement about other ships, etc.
And again, regardless....if it is better to refer to missions in the 2250s without the FYM label, okay.....
I look forward to an exploration or level of acknowledging some of the stories that have already been written and placed in that time frame. Partly because of my attention to chronological details, I'm curious what the placement of Discovery will be in the existing universe. I know that it is stated "ten" years before Kirk and Spock, but I'm already excitedly thinking about where that comment specifically pegs Discovery. Will have to wait and see, but I have already been going back to the chronology, wondering which nuggets you, David, and any of the other writers decide to expand upon. If any.
I look forward to you folks weaving in chapters or comments about what Kirk and crew were doing in their younger years, if appropriate. Also, just based on the some of the existing things that were part of Marvel's Early voyages, I'm looking forward to possible comments/notes/nodes to events from the time period. One of my favorite stories that could receive some attention was The Fallen, Marvel Early voyages #10/11. That comics UFP/Chakuun conflict was a great read. Would love to see a follow up to it. It was pretty expansive when it was written and even in that comic run, I always felt it should have been fleshed out a bit more.
There are numerous novels which have chapters with events happening from the time period. Hope you guys get the opportunity or get the chance to give a few polite nods. Peace.
Previous reports put it in 2255. Which would be 10 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before," so that fits, at least technically.
Where does that place Discovery in relation to The Cage?
Maybe for ships on a dedicated 5ym, certain systems/devices are created/run a different way to save power. They do have more sophisticated devices - they just don't use them. Plus, maybe it's at the captain's discretion - retro paper still feels better, just like how many people (myself included) prefer reading paper books to digital. There's digital back-ups, to be sure.
That's an interesting idea! Maybe its like in NuBSG where they had all that retro stuff on Galactica by CO discretion but the Pegasus was like uber advanced looking.
Separate names with a comma.