How Many Different Star Trek Chronologies are There?

[MAGolding]

The subject is in the title. How many different Star Trek chronologies are there?

How many different Star Trek chronologies do you know about, and how many different dates or date ranges do you know about for each series or movie? I would imagine that TOS and TAS have the most suggested dates of any Star Trek shows, with TNG the second most, and so on, and TMP would have the most suggested dates of any Star Trek movie, with WOK second, and so on.

Here I list four early printed sources (and another early printed source that might possibly have date information) for the fictional dates of Star Trek: The Original Series, though of course none of them is part of the official canon of episodes and movies.

1)

As far as I know, the first published date information about Star Trek appeared as early as 1967. James Blish was hired to write adaptations of various TOS episodes based on scripts that were sent to him, and the first book containing those adaptations, Star Trek, has a publication date listed as 1967-01-00, which I take to be January, 1967.

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?32121

Blish's adaptation of "Miri" in that book included a statement that Miri's planet was settled by refugees from the Cold Peace on Earth, an era from Blish's own Cities in Flight series that lasted from about 2022 to 2039. As I remember, that was supposed to be 500 years earlier, putting "Miri" sometime close to 2522 to 2539, and less than 200 years before the date suggested in the episode "The Squire of gothos".

2)

The second batch of Blish adaptations, Star Trek 2, was published in February, 1968, and included an adaptation of "Space Seed".

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?32179

According to Christopher, in post # 1290 here:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?32179

The Blish adaptation of "Space Seed" was the first to put the fictional date of an adaptation in the 23rd century.

3)

The issue of Analog Science Fiction - Science Fact with a date of February 1968 had an article "To Make a Star Trek" by G. Harry Stine with very early published data about Star Trek. Any indication about the fictional date would have been among the very earliest ever published.

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?115638

4)

The Making of Star Trek, Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, was published in September, 1968. It had a number of mentions of the fictional date. Christopher listed four in post number 1290 here:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/fac...k-the-real-story.215992/page-65#post-12601609

Several that I can find on a quick skim. On the Roddenberry quote on p. 170, he says "My scientist acquaintances are pretty sure they'll have something like a phaser well before the 23rd century." In the Roddenberry passage about McCoy's "salt shaker" medical instruments (p. 176), Roddenberry mentions asking what medical equipment would look like "three hundred years from now." Later, on p. 209, there's a line saying that the show's character "are played essentially as 20th century men, rather than 23rd century men." Four pages later, the chapter ends with "Three hundred years from now, who knows?" And that's all in less than 50 pages, so there are probably more throughout.

5)

One of the very earliest Star Trek fanzines, Star Trek: An Analysis of a Phenomenon in Science Fiction, is dated to 1968 in the online source I used.

https://fanlore.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_An_Analysis_of_a_Phenomenon_in_Science_Fiction

The lack of a publication month in that source, though the actual fanzine might list the month as well as the year, means that it is uncertain how many of the other sources I list might available to any of the contributors.

This fanzine includes among other things an unusual discussion of the transporter and the very earliest fan chronology of Star Trek I have ever seen. The chronology includes a war with the Vegan Tyranny from James Blish's Cities in Flight, probably either an independent shout out to Blish or based on Blish's mention of a conflict with the Vegan Tyranny in his adaptation of "Tomorrow is Yesterday". The adaptation of "Tomorrow is Yesterday" was published in Star Trek 2, with a publication date of February 1968.

And the chronology puts the first two seasons of TOS in the 2250s.

If all other fans were a) aware of this chronology, and b) concerned with never contradicting another fan source, it would have become the universal chronology used by all fandom. (Unless there was an even earlier fan chronology) But that was not the case and there are many other Star Trek chronologies.

I know of many other Star Trek chronologies, but this post is long enough. So feel free to list any chronologies you know of and the dates they give for various productions, as well as any additions and corrections to the items in my list.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual (1977) had a timeline although details escape me.

The Goldstein's Star Trek: Spaceflight Chronology (1980), which formed the basis for the 80's novel continuity and the many FASA RPG booklets and manuals.

A couple of Best of Trek books had timelines, one of them was for the Mirror Universe and based on the Goldstein's ST: SFC book.

Doug Drexler's USS Enterprise Officer's Manual (1980?) timeline. First released in an issue of the Star Fleet Officer's Handbook a few years earlier.

The Okudas Star Trek Chronology (1993), the definitive official timeline, although certain events have moved around since it's release (like the end of the TOS 5-year-mission)

James Dixon's Fandom Star Trek Chronology. I wouldn't know so much Trek material existed if it weren't for this. Attempted to reconcile later Trek's with the earliest fan timelines, and included all novels, technical fan publications and other obscure fan sources (like speculative articles on how the Federation ends from Best of Trek all filtered through Dixon's head. Many very entertaining rants and raves against (then) modern Trek.
He claimed to have made an 18th edition but refused to release it.

The Voyages of Imagination timeline. Updated Okuda chronology plus every Trek novel released up until 2004.

 

[thribs]

Prime, Mirror, ShatnerVerse and JJVerse comes to mind at the moment

 

[johnnybear]

I remember that line about the Vegan tyranny from James Blish's version of Tomorrow is Yesterday! The crew are asking where can they go in this time and I think it was Scotty that mentions the Vegan tyranny as a threat out in space at this time they might have to face if they stay!
JB

 

[MAGolding]

Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual (1977) had a timeline although details escape me.

I believe their chronology is part of what James Dixon called something like "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology" which he considered the correct chronology and all rival chronologies as being incorrect. As I remember James Dixon believed that what he called "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology" first began with a short chronology in a fanzine in 1975 (which of course was about seven years after the chronology in Star Trek: An Analysis of a Phenomenon in Science Fiction in 1968).

As I remember "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology" put the date of TOS in the early 2260s, a few years before the Okuda chronology did.

I have read the timeline in Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual (1977) and chronological data in Star Trek Maps (1980) and in some other works using "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology",and as I remember one of them had dates for the Kzinti Wars mentioned in "The Slaver Weapon".

Unfortunately, most of my Star Trek stuff is packed away in storage.

The Goldstein's Star Trek: Spaceflight Chronology (1980), which formed the basis for the 80's novel continuity and the many FASA RPG booklets and manuals.

As I remember, this chronology had the date of Talos IV being declared forbidden sometime in the 2190s and said that the reason didn't become known for over a decade, putting "The Menagerie" in the 2200s. I believe it dated the V'ger incident (TMP) to 2215, which would put Kirk's last star hour in about 2212.5 to 2213.5, and said that the 5 year mission was cut short at 3 years, which would put TOS in about 2209.5 to 2212.5, or 2210.5 to 2213.5.

A couple of Best of Trek books had timelines, one of them was for the Mirror Universe and based on the Goldstein's ST: SFC book.

Yes, there were a few timelines. I noticed that the authors of some mad different assumptions than others, which led me to value making as few assumptions as possible.

Doug Drexler's USS Enterprise Officer's Manual (1980?) timeline. First released in an issue of the Star Fleet Officer's Handbook a few years earlier.

I believe that is part of the "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology". It might be the one that mentions the Kizinti Wars.

The Okudas Star Trek Chronology (1993), the definitive official timeline, although certain events have moved around since it's release (like the end of the TOS 5-year-mission)

It may be the official timeline, but of course it is not canonical, and it is also not totally correct, being contradicted by canon evidence in places. I wish that the Okudas had also learned to make as few assumptions as possible.

James Dixon's Fandom Star Trek Chronology

. I wouldn't know so much Trek material existed if it weren't for this. Attempted to reconcile later Trek's with the earliest fan timelines, and included all novels, technical fan publications and other obscure fan sources (like speculative articles on how the Federation ends from Best of Trek all filtered through Dixon's head. Many very entertaining rants and raves against (then) modern Trek.
He claimed to have made an 18th edition but refused to release it.

A timeline containing all then Star Trek episodes, movies, novels, books, comic books, comic strips, games, technical manuals, etc., etc., was a very ambitious project. And from what I have seen of it I sometimes suspect James Dixon's real name was Ranton N. Raven.

The Voyages of Imagination timeline. Updated Okuda chronology plus every Trek novel released up until 2004.

That sounds interesting.

 

[Annorax849]

I mostly know about the 1993 book (learned so much from that one) and the 96 update.

 

[BillJ]

47.

 

[Mysterion]

Ask ten fans and you'll get a dozen opinions on which chronology is correct.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I believe their chronology is part of what James Dixon called something like "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology" which he considered the correct chronology and all rival chronologies as being incorrect. As I remember James Dixon believed that what he called "The Star Trek technical fandom chronology" first began with a short chronology in a fanzine in 1975 (which of course was about seven years after the chronology in Star Trek: An Analysis of a Phenomenon in Science Fiction in 1968).

Dixon's work isn't quite any one chronology, it's his own unique blending of everything he liked and some (but not all) of what he didn't. Here's more about Dixon than you want to know. He had... issues.

As I remember, this chronology had the date of Talos IV being declared forbidden sometime in the 2190s and said that the reason didn't become known for over a decade, putting "The Menagerie" in the 2200s. I believe it dated the V'ger incident (TMP) to 2215, which would put Kirk's last star hour in about 2212.5 to 2213.5, and said that the 5 year mission was cut short at 3 years, which would put TOS in about 2209.5 to 2212.5, or 2210.5 to 2213.5.

Yeah, the SFC timeline, greatly expanded by FASA puts TOS at reference Stardate 2/0704 which works out to 2207. The Voyage Home ends 2222. The Next Generation begins 2303.

It may be the official timeline, but of course it is not canonical, and it is also not totally correct, being contradicted by canon evidence in places. I wish that the Okudas had also learned to make as few assumptions as possible.

But it's the one that every official new version of Star Trek uses as a baseline. Kirk and Spock's birth years were from it in the Kelvin movies (other character ages were changed, however), Discovery uses it for their "10 years before TOS" (beginning 2256) and so on.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Dixon is a special kind of insane. On the one hand, you kind of admire his obsessiveness and thoroughness. On the other, his timeline boils down to TOS taking place in 2260 based on Spock guesstimating the age of a piano in "Miri."

I generally like the Okuda timeline, but I have problems with several of the assumptions they made in the TOS era. (TWOK taking place 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of 15, Kirk somehow becoming a Lieutenant while still at Starfleet Academy, etc.) That's why I made my own TOS timeline to address what I feel were the faults in the Okuda version.

 

[BillJ]

That's why I made my own TOS timeline to address what I feel were the faults in the Okuda version.

You have the Romulan Neutral Zone's creation listed as 2260.

 

[MAGolding]

I remember that line about the Vegan tyranny from James Blish's version of Tomorrow is Yesterday! The crew are asking where can they go in this time and I think it was Scotty that mentions the Vegan tyranny as a threat out in space at this time they might have to face if they stay!
JB

Astronomers have a name "the Local Group" for the group of nearest galaxies, about 10 million light years in diameter, with about 50 tiny galaxies and several huge ones including ours.

James Blish used the name "the Local Group" for all the stars within a radius of 25 light years or 50 light years, and thus a diameter of either 50 light years or 100 light years, of Earth. He mentions this local group of stars, not galaxies, in his Cities in Flight series and in some of his early adaptations of TOS episodes.

So in the adaptation, if I remember correctly, Mr. Scott said that the engines were repaired but wondered where they could possibly go to in this time. I believe he said something like: "In this era space outside of the local group was ruled by the Vegan Tyranny and you'll remember what happened when we ran into them".

One option would be to go to some star system that was within the local group and thus not ruled by the Vegan Tyranny according to Scott. But some of the habitable planets in the local group are the home worlds of Vulcans, Tellarites, and Andorians and they wouldn't want to change their histories. Though of course the locations of those home worlds weren't made official until after this adaptation was written.

If the Vegans ruled a vast region of the galaxy, but not the stars in the local group, one would
assume that their empire stretched over many thousands of light years right to the edge of the local group. So one possible course of action would be to head out of the local group of stars in a direction away from the Vegan Tyranny (also away from Romulan or Klingon space) to find some planet to settle on that wasn't going to be explored by the Federation until their own era.

What is really puzzling is that Scott talked like the Vegans ruled everywhere outside the local group of stars, as if the local group was a bubble of independent space surrounded by Vegan space.

 

[Tim Thomason]

You have the Romulan Neutral Zone's creation listed as 2260.

Yeah, and Kang in 2370 is listed as 2270. A couple of typos are to be excepted.

I'm curious about McCoy's birthday in JQ's timeline though. He accepts the 2364 date for Encounter at Farpoint (and notes that McCoy is 137 in the episode), but elsewhere he says McCoy is about 18 in 2238 (closer to the actor's age). He doesn't list McCoy's birth year, and might need to shift up some dates to jibe with TNG.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You have the Romulan Neutral Zone's creation listed as 2260.

Yeah, and Kang in 2370 is listed as 2270. A couple of typos are to be excepted.

Thanks for pointing those out. I obviously got VERY used to beginning every year with "22." I'll correct those entries.

I'm curious about McCoy's birthday in JQ's timeline though. He accepts the 2364 date for Encounter at Farpoint (and notes that McCoy is 137 in the episode), but elsewhere he says McCoy is about 18 in 2238 (closer to the actor's age). He doesn't list McCoy's birth year, and might need to shift up some dates to jibe with TNG.

Yeah, I consciously disregard the "137" age quoted for McCoy in "Encounter at Farpoint" because it screws up his age in TOS, and puts him in his late 30s. My justification for this is that the 2364 year hadn't been established in TNG yet, so McCoy's age was just a random number rather than a deliberate attempt to establish his age. If I can incorporate TNG & the other 24th century shows without contradicting TOS, great. If not, I don't include it.

And since everyone seems to disregard Data's "Class of '78" statement from EaF with no problem, I have no hesitation at doing the same for the 137 age for McCoy. Let's just say that Data was having an off day for numbers and leave it at that, okay?

I have this explanation in my text version of the timeline, but I guess I haven't incorporated that into the online version yet. In my mind McCoy and Scotty were both born in the same year, 2220, which lines up with the actors' real ages. I'm trying to play fair, though, so when I conclude something in contradiction to the Okuda timeline, I'll note it.

 

[MAGolding]

Dixon is a special kind of insane. On the one hand, you kind of admire his obsessiveness and thoroughness. On the other, his timeline boils down to TOS taking place in 2260 based on Spock guesstimating the age of a piano in "Miri."

It certainly seems like an odd choice to consider basing chronological decisions on. I figure Spock calculated the wood in the piano was from trees cut 300 years earlier or that the dust layer was about 300 years deep. (In "The Haunter of the Dark" Lovecraft had the protagonist walking through the nave of the Starry Wisdom Church, deserted for only about 100 years, and the dust was inches deep. So how deep would the dust be in 300 years in real life?).

And making the 300 years the basis of dating Star TreK seems illogical to me. It is assuming that Spock looked at the design of the piano and remembered that similar pianos were made on Earth 300 years earlier, and since Spock said the buildings and autos looked like:

More the, er, mid-1900s I would say, Captain, approximately 1960.

The date of "Miri" should be about 2260.

I generally like the Okuda timeline, but I have problems with several of the assumptions they made in the TOS era. (TWOK taking place 18 years after "Space Seed" instead of 15, Kirk somehow becoming a Lieutenant while still at Starfleet Academy, etc.) That's why I made my own TOS timeline to address what I feel were the faults in the Okuda version.

WOK, TSFS, TVH, and TFF happen within the space of a few months, and almost certainly within much less than a full year. Therefor, at the most WOK could be in one calendar year and TFF could be in the next calendar year. But The Okudas have WOK and TSFS happen in 2285, TVH happen in 2286, and TFF happen in 2287.

The Okuda timeline puts "Space Seed" in 2267 (which is 17 to 19 years before WOK which is said to be 15 years after Kirk left Khan on Ceti Alpha V), and 19 to 21 years before TFF in 2287 when Dar said that Nimbus III was founded 20 years ago. The founding of Nimbus III should be after "Balance of Terror" which happens in the same season as "Space Seed".

So the Okuda timeline dates are their clumsy attempts to make some sense of the conflicting statements. I have offered several better alternatives in a recent post.

 

[BillJ]

So the Okuda timeline dates are their clumsy attempts to make some sense of the conflicting statements. I have offered several better alternatives in a recent post.

Better for you. Better overall is a different question? We all make sense of contradictory information differently.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

WOK, TSFS, TVH, and TFF happen within the space of a few months, and almost certainly within much less than a full year. Therefor, at the most WOK could be in one calendar year and TFF could be in the next calendar year.

I don't subscribe to the theory that all four of those movies happened one right on top of another. If for no other reason than the actors are aging pretty noticeably over the course of those seven years.

But The Okudas have WOK and TSFS happen in 2285, TVH happen in 2286, and TFF happen in 2287.

I have TWOK happening in 2283, based on the year on the bottle of Romulan ale. Kirk was making a joke about McCoy bringing him a cheap bottle of liquor for his birthday. It was the equivalent of a gag gift before the real gift: Kirk's bifocals.

In addition, an earlier script draft of TWOK said that it was Kirk's 49th birthday, which is a more likely time to have a midlife crisis than your 52nd birthday. So TWOK takes place in March 2283, and Kirk was born in March 2234. And subtracting 15 years from 49 put Kirk right at 34, his stated age in "The Deadly Years."

TSFS I push to October for two reasons: One, it allows some time to fit in the adventures seen in the first few issues of DC's Star Trek comic (which explain why the Enterprise is more damaged when it returns to Spacedock at the beginning of TSFS than it was at the end of TWOK -- It took another trip to Galactic Barrier right before STIII). And secondly, an October date allows us to push TVH into the next year with the three month Vulcan exile. So TVH takes place in January of 2284.

For TFF, I go with the Okuda date of 2287. The 20 years figure puts it at least that long after "Balance of Terror," and it's only vaguely connected to the end of TVH, anyway. Does anyone really like the idea of the new Enterprise-A breaking down right as the end credits of TVH start rolling? I certainly don't.

The Okuda timeline puts "Space Seed" in 2267 (which is 17 to 19 years before WOK which is said to be 15 years after Kirk left Khan on Ceti Alpha V),

I cheated a bit by having "Space Seed" in 2267 instead of 2268. I figure the gap between SS and TWOK is slightly over 15 years, but still closer to 15 than 16. Either way it's still a lot better than the Okuda version which has an 18-year gap with no explanation for the discrepancy from the movie's dialogue.

The founding of Nimbus III should be after "Balance of Terror"

Yes, agreed. I don't see any way that it couldn't be.

...which happens in the same season as "Space Seed".

Yes, but unlike with TNG, we don't really have any evidence that a season of TOS all takes place in one calendar year. In fact, with Kang saying in the third season episode "Day of the Dove" that it's been three years since the Organian Peace Treaty (established late in the first season, shortly after "Errand of Mercy"), we have evidence that a season equals more than a year.

My theory is that like TNG, 1000 stardate units on TOS still equal one calendar year. The stardates on TOS span from the low 1000s to the upper 5000s, or just under 5000 units. 5000 stardate units = five years. The stardates in the 1000s are in the first year of the 5YM, the 2000s are in the second, and so on. So therefore, we see highlights of all five years over the course of three seasons, and the 5YM ended somewhere around stardate 6000.0. (This theory doesn't really work when you incorporate TAS, though. Its stardates went over 6000 pretty quickly.)

It's not perfect (no chronology theory is), but this theory makes the most sense to me.

 

[MAGolding]

Thanks for pointing those out. I obviously got VERY used to beginning every year with "22." I'll correct those entries.

Yeah, I consciously disregard the "137" age quoted for McCoy in "Encounter at Farpoint" because it screws up his age in TOS, and puts him in his late 30s. My justification for this is that the 2364 year hadn't been established in TNG yet, so McCoy's age was just a random number rather than a deliberate attempt to establish his age. If I can incorporate TNG & the other 24th century shows without contradicting TOS, great. If not, I don't include it.

And since everyone seems to disregard Data's "Class of '78" statement from EaF with no problem, I have no hesitation at doing the same for the 137 age for McCoy. Let's just say that Data was having an off day for numbers and leave it at that, okay?

I have this explanation in my text version of the timeline, but I guess I haven't incorporated that into the online version yet. In my mind McCoy and Scotty were both born in the same year, 2220, which lines up with the actors' real ages. I'm trying to play fair, though, so when I conclude something in contradiction to the Okuda timeline, I'll note it.

"Encounter at Farpoint":

MCCOY: Troubles me? What's so damned troubling about not having died? How old do you think I am?
DATA: One hundred thirty seven years, Admiral, according to Starfleet records.

We have no reason to think that Data would remember someone's age from the Starfleet records inaccurately. Therefore the Starfleet records must list McCoy's age as between 137.000 years and 137.999 years. How well Starfleet records adjust age for time travel, time dilation, suspended animation, rapid aging diseases, youth restoration therapies, dying and being restored to life, and various time warps is unknown, so it is unknown whether McCoy was born 137 years before "Encounter with Farpoint".

And:

RIKER: Then your rank of Lieutenant Commander is honorary?
DATA: No, sir. Starfleet class of '78. Honours in probability mechanics and exobiology.

I say if Data says he graduated in the Starfleet class of '78, he graduated in the class of '78. Of course it is uncertain whether the graduating year was 78, or 578, or 1478, or 2078, or 3178, but the year was definitely '78 according to the calendar used.

In "Datalore":

LAFORGE: This once was rich farmland. I'd say something like twenty to thirty years ago.
DATA: I was discovered twenty six years ago.

LORE: Promises he later proved to be true. Which made you and me possible, brother. Our beloved father. Will I soon have a uniform like that, brother?
DATA: If you get one the way I did, Lore, it will mean four years at the Academy, another three as ensign, ten or twelve on varied space duty in the lieutenant grades.

This strongly implies that Data became an lieutenant commander 13 to 15 years after graduating in '78 and being commissioned an ensign. Thus Data should have become a lieutenant commander about '91 to '93.

Data apparently entered the Academy in '74. If he entered the Academy immediately after being found on Omicron Theta, "Datalore" would be in about the year '99, or else in '00 or '01 of the next century.

Thus "Datalore" happens between about '91 of the century where Data was commissioned an ensign and '01 in the next century.

Then in "The Neutral Zone" three dead people are revived:

RALPH: What year is this?
DATA: By your calendar two thousand three hundred sixty four.

Data is clearly telling Ralph that the year is 2364 in the calendar used in Ralph's era. Data doesn't specify that the year is 2364 in the calendar used in Data's era, nor in the calendar used by the audience. Clearly Ralph's calendar is different from the calendar used in "Encounter at Farpoint".

My theory is when the three revived people returned to Earth they became celebrities, and that caused the United Earth government to adopt the calendar that had been used in their era as the new official United Earth calendar. And thus the dates used in most later episodes were based on the second season happening in 2365 of the new calendar, the 3rd season happening in 2366, and so on.

What we see there is a clear example of the United Earth government adopting a new official United Earth calendar, an action which should have happened a number of times to account for otherwise contradictory dates.

 

[Mytran]

Maybe Data graduated in a class of 78 students and simply misunderstood the nature of the phrase?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Yeah, I've heard that theory before.