Star Trek II, III, IV movie Timeline question...

[BillJ]

@BillJ

Actually, at his trial they DID seem in a rush to get him back on a starship as that's the place he could "do the most good".

I think you're grasping here. The Federation had a public relations event, but the eventual assignment would be handled by Starfleet Command, not the Federation. The Federation president got all the PR mileage out of it he could, that day. I don't think Starfleet would be all that concerned in rushing Kirk and company out the door.

 

[BillJ]

I'm paraphrasing but that's gist of it. Doesn't seem like they'd keep them on ground assignments or hold a grudge considering he and the crew literally just saved the world.

The Federation Council and Starfleet Command are two distinct bodies. Kirk saved Earth, he made Starfleet Command look like incompetent fools. The Federation Council has no reason to hold a grudge.

 

[Tosk]

The only real clue we have is the enduring enthusiasm Gillian Taylor has about being in the future...

Which is a good indicator that the trial is quite a time after the whale release. You don't just travel to the future and get posted to a starship on your second day there.

 

[BillJ]

Even if they'd had ground assignments, I find it hard to believe word wouldn't get to them of a new Enterprise being built at spacedock.

It wouldn't be built at Spacedock. Spacedock is a maintenance facility.

It also works under the assumption that the Enterprise is a brand new ship, and was being constructed as the "Enterprise". Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, tosses out the idea that the ship was the renamed transwarp testbed ship USS Ti-Ho (would explain how she got to the center of the galaxy so fast in the next movie). Gene Roddenberry stated it was the renamed USS Yorktown.

 

[DIrishB]

From the Memory Alpha wikia regarding Enterprise-A:

"In 2286, the Enterprise-A was commissioned at the San Francisco Fleet Yards on stardate8442.5. She was launched from the Earth Spacedock on the order of the Federation Council in appreciation of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew's efforts to prevent the Whale Probe from devastating Earth. The crew initially thought they were going to be assigned to the USS Excelsior (or, according to Leonard McCoy, a "freighter" at best), but the new Enterprise was soon revealed, docked behind the Excelsior. The crew took their stations and the Enterprise left spacedock on a shakedown cruise. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)

The shakedown did not proceed as planned, and the Enterprise limped back to spacedock for several weeks of repair under the supervision of Captain Montgomery Scott. Although her warp drive was working perfectly, half the doors on the ship were malfunctioning and several control interfaces did not work. The transporter was also nonfunctional, requiring shuttles to be used for off-ship missions."

Doesn't really give any info on the length of construction time or process in terms of how ships are named/assigned.

Was it originally a Constitution class meant for another captain and crew and different name before being reassigned to Kirk and his crew as a thanks for their efforts in saving the world? Can't say, but it wouldn't be all that different from Kirk taking surprise command of the Enterprise in TMP from Decker. That had been established as a possibility.

And given Kirk and the crew's record in numerous highly dangerous events where they came out alive and won, well... there's a logic to it.

 

[DIrishB]

@Tosk

There wouldn't really be that much of a delay for their trial though. And don't forget, Gillian said she had a lot to learn and that was part of the point of her assignment to that ship: to learn about the future she'd recently come to. I doubt the trial was more than a week or two after their return. Especially since it was already partially underway while they were on Vulcan, in regards to the Klingon ambassador's accusations and Sarek's defense of them in early part of the film.

 

[DIrishB]

@BillJ

Roddenberry claimed the Enterprise-A was a renamed Yorktown? That confirms my theory, then, doesn't it? That it was in existence/already under construction and renamed?

 

[BillJ]

@BillJ

Roddenberry claimed the Enterprise-A was a renamed Yorktown? That confirms my theory, then, doesn't it? That it was in existence/already under construction and renamed?

But I imagine there is quit a bit more to renaming a starship than tossing a coat of paint on it.

 

[DIrishB]

According to Memory Alpha,

Stardate 8390 is when ST IV begins.

8442.5 is when Enterprise-A was launched at end of ST IV.

I'm unsure of how much time that is exactly. But if each 1000 of a Stardate is equal to a year, the difference of 52 means it's 1/20 of a year, or less than a month from beginning of ST IV to the end of the film/launch of Enterprise-A... unless my math is totally wrong.

 

[DIrishB]

But I imagine there is quit a bit more to renaming a starship than tossing a coat of paint on it.

I can finally quote! Couldn't before since I'm a new member.

I'm sure there is more too, but nothing says it can't be accelerated, and the Stardates given for beginning of ST IV and the ending/launch of Enterprise-A show not much time passed at all.

STIV begins on 8390 and ends on 8442.

If we assume each year equals 1000 Stardate measurements, like I said that difference of only 52 is less than a month.

 

[DIrishB]

A little under 3 weeks to be exact (19 days and change) for the entire film, assuming I'm not totally screwing up my calculations, which is always a possibility as math isn't my forte.

 

[DIrishB]

1000 / 365 = 2.7

So each day of the year is 2.7 units of the Stardate system.

8442 - 8390 = 52

52 / 2.7 = 19.25 days (length of ST IV)

Again, I could be completely incorrect on my figures/approach. If so please let me know.

 

[DIrishB]

So, maybe a day or two on Vulcan at beginning, a day or so traveling back to Earth/going to past/returning immediately after they left on same day... then there must have been a couple weeks before they faced sentencing at their trial (presumably the unveiling of the Enterprise-A occurs same day but maybe not).

Either way, ST IV covers about 19 days of my calculations are correct.

 

[BillJ]

Hard to know exactly what they thought of stardates. The Motion Picture takes place during stardate 7412.6. The Wrath of Khan, 8130.4. Yet, they are close to a decade apart. The Search for Spock starts on 8210.3. The Voyage Home, 8390.

There are 180 units difference between The Search for Spock and the beginning of The Voyage Home.

180*2.7=486 days. Yet they were only on Vulcan for three months, and I can't imagine that the events of Search... took more than a few days.

Stardates for TOS are usually a wildly inaccurate way to judge time.

 

[BillJ]

Math was wrong, but dividing 180 by 2.7 only gives 66 days.

 

[DIrishB]

Hard to know exactly what they thought of stardates. The Motion Picture takes place during stardate 7412.6. The Wrath of Khan, 8130.4. Yet, they are close to a decade apart. The Search for Spock starts on 8210.3. The Voyage Home, 8390.

There are 180 units difference between The Search for Spock and the beginning of The Voyage Home.

180*2.7=486 days. Yet they were only on Vulcan for three months, and I can't imagine that the events of Search... took more than a few days.

Stardates for TOS are usually a wildly inaccurate way to judge time.

Exactly. Like I said, Stardates were always pretty arbitrary, least during TOS era.

The series Bible even says as much, more or less:

"Pick any combination of four numbers plus a percentage point [ed. note: tenths digit], use it as your story's stardate. For example, 1313.5 is twelve o'clock noon of one day and 1314.5 would be noon of the next day. Each percentage point is roughly equivalent to one-tenth of one day. The progression of stardates in your script should remain constant but don't worry about whether or not there is a progression from other scripts. Stardates are a mathematical formula which varies depending on location in the galaxy, velocity of travel, and other factors, can vary widely from episode to episode."

Again, Stardates were always meant to be ambiguous as at the time Roddenberry didn't want to nail down a specific time period for it.

It wasn't until TNG/DS9/Voyager era that the show runners began to pay attention and employ a chronological approach to them (well least after TNG Season 1, and even then there were issues from time to time across the various series and TNG era films in terms of Stardates not jiving).

But, one thing to note in that series Bible quote mwntions "Stardates are a mathematical formula which varies depending on location in the galaxy, velocity of travel, and other factors, can vary widely from episode to episode."

So location, warp speed, etc can apparently alter the Stardates, and thus chronologically placing episodes in order of Stardate alone is incorrect as well.

Have to say, for all the reboot films' faults, at least their calendar/Stardate system is logical and easy to follow (year and day, 2258.42, or February 11, 2258).

 

[DIrishB]

That's why I utilized Kirk's birthday as a gauge/starting point in determining placement of II-V. It provides a hard date/month to start from and dialogue and logical deduction can help place the remaining films through V at pretty accurate months.

 

[DIrishB]

This article sums up the confusion that is the Stardate system pretty well:

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=68741

Ultimately, they're intentionally ambiguous (especially during TOS era). Since location in galaxy and speed they're traveling at effect the stardate (as well as likely things like gravitational anomalies, etc), trying to watch the shows in order based on Stardate wouldn't be the correct viewing order either.

Since DS9 is the only show set in a static location that doesn't move, presumably it's Stardates should all steadily increase as the season progresses. TOS, TAS, TNG, Voyager, the various films... it's up in the air for most part. Any Stardate screw ups (like the Tasha Yar death screwup) must just be attributable to location in the galaxy and speed they're traveling at.

 

[DIrishB]

Further it makes sense they aren't using an Earth calendar system for the Federation/Starfleet, since it's made up of various cultures with different time/dating systems and planets whose orbits/rotations operate differently from Earth's. So a standardized approach for all the various alien races that make up the Federation makes sense in that regard (can't be human centric or based on Earth's rotation/revolution/calendar system). Now that I think about it in that regard, much as I like the reboot films simplistic approach to Stardates, it makes no sense in regards to the other alien races that make up Starfleet and the UFP.

 

[DIrishB]

Even Roddenberry himself left it quite open to interpretation by noting the position in galaxy and the speed traveling at impacting Stardate:

"
When we began making episodes, we would use a star date such as 2317 one week, and then a week later when we made the next episode we would move the star date up to 2942, and so on. Unfortunately, however, the episodes are not aired in the same order in which we filmed them. So we began to get complaints from the viewers, asking, "How come one week the star date is 2891, the next week it's 2337, and then the week after it's 3414?"

In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading. Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy."