Some episodes don't have Stardates and you can have liberty in placing them where you desire from each season. I do think the comparisons in tech between TOS, TAS, and TMP is something to contemplate and I feel deserves an analysis.
The 5-year mission and head canon…
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Enterprise really gets around based on the needs of the story; plot speed versus warp speed wins every race.
Exactly, but that doesn't stop the fan wankery trying to justify every little inconsistency
Seventy some dramatic events occurring during a 5-year cruise does beggar belief if you’re really striving for more genuine credibility. Imagine each season actually depicting the highlights of a 5-year cruise. Hell, thats a basis for a more contemporary approach to television storytelling.
On another note recall that in many instances things could have gone very wrong for the Enterprise on any number of occasions. Given the Star Trek universe is apparently teaming with life, dangers and omnipotent beings it’s reasonable to assume the Enterprise isn’t the only Starfleet starship encountering these things. It’s easy to see some of those ships might not be as lucky as the Enterprise.
It is my opinion that someone should reduce their assumptions about something to the absolute minimum possible. The purpose of avoiding assumptions is to avoid assuming so much that it becomes contraditory and inconistent and there is no possible way to make it all self consistent.
As some of you may be aware, I have expressed the opinion that in a long running radio, television etc. series that lasts for several seasons, and has tens or hundreds or soemtimes thousands of episodes, it makes sense to think of each of the episodes as happening its own separate alternate universe different from the alternate universes of other episodes.
If the series has a pilot showing how the characters come together in their setting, one can assume that each of the episodes happens is a sequal to that pilot film (but the episodes otherwise happen in alternate universes of their own). I guess that "Encounter at Farpoint" is that time of pilot for TNG. I am not certain whether "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is such a pilot film for TOS.
And if one episode of a series is a sequel to another episode, they must both happen in the same alternate universe.
And in some threads I have listed the few TOS episodes which seem to be sequels to other TOS episodes.
It is my opinion that all the episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY are sequels to "Encounter at Farpoint", though they mostly happen in alternate universes to each other. So if any episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY is a sequel to any episode of TOS, Encounter at Farpoint" must also be a sequel to that episode of TOS, which in turn means that every episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY must also be a sequel to that episode of TOS.
And in other threads I have listed the episodes of TOS, and the TOS movies, that every episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY must also be a sequel to. They are about a dozen episodes and movies. In the VOY episode "Q2" there are mentions of other events during Kirk's five year mission:
And there is no reason to assume that many morre exicting events happened durin KIrk's five year mission than are mentioned above.
And since this thread is about TOS, we Don't have to consider the many times more complicated question of which TNG, DS0, and VOY episodes were sequels to others.
Accepting the possibiity that unless there is evidence otherwise, TOS episodes might happen in their own separate alternatie universes gives a method of avoiding problems with episodes contradicting other episodes and too many episodes happening in five years time, and the Enterprise travelling too far in five years time.
Furthermore, there is no need to assume that you know the order that TOS episodes happen in. It is normal to assume that the three seasons of TOS happen one after the other, and that that TAS happens after TOS. And it is often assumed that all episodes happen in stardate order, or that all episodes happen in production order, or that all episodes happen in broadcast order.
And there is no proof that episodes, whetther in the same elternate universe, or in different alternate universes, happen in any particular order someone can think of and assume. If episode B is a sequel to episode A, episode A must happen before episode B. And that gives less than a dozen cases of episodes happening in a known order.
Kirk talks about the five year mission in the opening credits of TOS. And in Star Trek: The Motion Picture:
So the question is how long or short a period would Kirk describe as "five years". Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between five and six years. Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between four and a half and six and a half years. Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between four and seven years.
And I think that four to seven years is the limit of leeway we can give to Kirk's "five years", which is usually assumed, without proof, to be the exact same span of time as the five years mission, though perhaps those two time spans merely overlapped to a degree.
With the possible exception "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which might have been before the five year mission, the maximum possible amount of time between any two episodes during the five year mission should not be more than seven years, and possilby much less. And if you decide that episodes don't have to happen in any particular predetermined order, that might help with some chronological problems.
I suggest that there may be one or more time skips in TOS, where the Enterprise travels forward in time and can't travel back to its original time for fear of changing the timeline. Such time skips might possibly explain why the interstellar society seems much more advanced in the later seasons than in the first half of the first season. So the fiv eyears mission could have been spread out over more than five years time on Earth.
Limits to such hypothetical time skips are episodes where the lengths of time between meeting characters previusly iare mentoned, in "Court Martial", "This Side of Paradise", "Journey to Babel" and "The Deadly Years".
Limits to the possible duration of such hypothetical time skips may also be set by the TOS movies from WOK to FF, movies which should all happen within a short period of a few months of fictional time.
In WOK both Kirk and Khan say it has been fifteen years since they last met, which is usually assumed to have been during "Space Seed". And I would guess that "fifteen years" could not possibley be less than fourteen years or more than seventeen years. .
In FF it is said that Nimbus III was established by the Federation, the Romulans, and the Klingons "twenty years" earlier. Twenty years should not be less than eighteen or more than twentytwo, But everyone should have known what Romulans looked like after Romulan subject species cme to Nimbus III and told others. So Nimbus III should have been founded some time after "Balance of Terror",when nobody in the Federation kenw what Romulans looked like.
"Balance of Terror" is usually supposed to have been only months before "Space Seed", which would be fourteen to seventeen years before WOK, which would be a few months before FF, which should be eighteen to twenty two years after "Balance of Terror". So there are problems making the chronlogy add up. Making "Balance of Terror" happen years before "Space Seed" would help.
If the Enterprise A encountered some sort of time warp on its shakedown cruise at the end of VH, and was sent a few years into the future to just before FF, that would help the chronological problems.
There is no proof that TMP happens in the same timeline as WOK, so it is possible that the two movies happen at the same time in different alternate universes. The only evidence for the time interval between the end of the five year mission and TMP are the statements that Kirk has not logged a star hours for two and a half years, and that Kirk has been chief of Starfleet Operations for two and a half years. But both of those could refer to a time that was itself some unknown time, perhaps years, after the end of the five year mission.
It is common to assume that everyone alwyas states time intervals using years of the same lenght. And it is common to assume that those years of the same length are Earth years. And there is no proof of that.
In "Journey to Babel" Sarek seems to give his age in Earth years.
And there may be a few examples of Earth years being specified. But most statements do not specify the type of years used, and there are some examples where characters using years of diferent lengths could explain chronolgical contradtictions.
There are many examples in Star Trek productions where events are dated to a year number.
It is common to assume that all such examples count the years from the same moment in time used as a calendar era. It is also common to assume that the calendar era used in all such examples is Anno Domini.
But I know of only about half a dozen examples where the calendar era, the time that the years are counted from, is specified. There is one example of a year BC, in TOS, and the rest are examples of years AD in tNG.
So accepting the possibility that different dates might be given using different calendar eras may be necessary to explain various chronological contradticitons in TOS.
And I hope this discussion will help people avoid making too man assumptions about TOS.
As some of you may be aware, I have expressed the opinion that in a long running radio, television etc. series that lasts for several seasons, and has tens or hundreds or soemtimes thousands of episodes, it makes sense to think of each of the episodes as happening its own separate alternate universe different from the alternate universes of other episodes.
If the series has a pilot showing how the characters come together in their setting, one can assume that each of the episodes happens is a sequal to that pilot film (but the episodes otherwise happen in alternate universes of their own). I guess that "Encounter at Farpoint" is that time of pilot for TNG. I am not certain whether "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is such a pilot film for TOS.
And if one episode of a series is a sequel to another episode, they must both happen in the same alternate universe.
And in some threads I have listed the few TOS episodes which seem to be sequels to other TOS episodes.
It is my opinion that all the episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY are sequels to "Encounter at Farpoint", though they mostly happen in alternate universes to each other. So if any episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY is a sequel to any episode of TOS, Encounter at Farpoint" must also be a sequel to that episode of TOS, which in turn means that every episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY must also be a sequel to that episode of TOS.
And in other threads I have listed the episodes of TOS, and the TOS movies, that every episode of TNG, DS9, and VOY must also be a sequel to. They are about a dozen episodes and movies. In the VOY episode "Q2" there are mentions of other events during Kirk's five year mission:
And there is no reason to assume that many morre exicting events happened durin KIrk's five year mission than are mentioned above.
And since this thread is about TOS, we Don't have to consider the many times more complicated question of which TNG, DS0, and VOY episodes were sequels to others.
Accepting the possibiity that unless there is evidence otherwise, TOS episodes might happen in their own separate alternatie universes gives a method of avoiding problems with episodes contradicting other episodes and too many episodes happening in five years time, and the Enterprise travelling too far in five years time.
Furthermore, there is no need to assume that you know the order that TOS episodes happen in. It is normal to assume that the three seasons of TOS happen one after the other, and that that TAS happens after TOS. And it is often assumed that all episodes happen in stardate order, or that all episodes happen in production order, or that all episodes happen in broadcast order.
And there is no proof that episodes, whetther in the same elternate universe, or in different alternate universes, happen in any particular order someone can think of and assume. If episode B is a sequel to episode A, episode A must happen before episode B. And that gives less than a dozen cases of episodes happening in a known order.
Kirk talks about the five year mission in the opening credits of TOS. And in Star Trek: The Motion Picture:
So the question is how long or short a period would Kirk describe as "five years". Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between five and six years. Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between four and a half and six and a half years. Possibly Kirk would only describe a time span as "five years" if it was between four and seven years.
And I think that four to seven years is the limit of leeway we can give to Kirk's "five years", which is usually assumed, without proof, to be the exact same span of time as the five years mission, though perhaps those two time spans merely overlapped to a degree.
With the possible exception "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which might have been before the five year mission, the maximum possible amount of time between any two episodes during the five year mission should not be more than seven years, and possilby much less. And if you decide that episodes don't have to happen in any particular predetermined order, that might help with some chronological problems.
I suggest that there may be one or more time skips in TOS, where the Enterprise travels forward in time and can't travel back to its original time for fear of changing the timeline. Such time skips might possibly explain why the interstellar society seems much more advanced in the later seasons than in the first half of the first season. So the fiv eyears mission could have been spread out over more than five years time on Earth.
Limits to such hypothetical time skips are episodes where the lengths of time between meeting characters previusly iare mentoned, in "Court Martial", "This Side of Paradise", "Journey to Babel" and "The Deadly Years".
Limits to the possible duration of such hypothetical time skips may also be set by the TOS movies from WOK to FF, movies which should all happen within a short period of a few months of fictional time.
In WOK both Kirk and Khan say it has been fifteen years since they last met, which is usually assumed to have been during "Space Seed". And I would guess that "fifteen years" could not possibley be less than fourteen years or more than seventeen years. .
In FF it is said that Nimbus III was established by the Federation, the Romulans, and the Klingons "twenty years" earlier. Twenty years should not be less than eighteen or more than twentytwo, But everyone should have known what Romulans looked like after Romulan subject species cme to Nimbus III and told others. So Nimbus III should have been founded some time after "Balance of Terror",when nobody in the Federation kenw what Romulans looked like.
"Balance of Terror" is usually supposed to have been only months before "Space Seed", which would be fourteen to seventeen years before WOK, which would be a few months before FF, which should be eighteen to twenty two years after "Balance of Terror". So there are problems making the chronlogy add up. Making "Balance of Terror" happen years before "Space Seed" would help.
If the Enterprise A encountered some sort of time warp on its shakedown cruise at the end of VH, and was sent a few years into the future to just before FF, that would help the chronological problems.
There is no proof that TMP happens in the same timeline as WOK, so it is possible that the two movies happen at the same time in different alternate universes. The only evidence for the time interval between the end of the five year mission and TMP are the statements that Kirk has not logged a star hours for two and a half years, and that Kirk has been chief of Starfleet Operations for two and a half years. But both of those could refer to a time that was itself some unknown time, perhaps years, after the end of the five year mission.
It is common to assume that everyone alwyas states time intervals using years of the same lenght. And it is common to assume that those years of the same length are Earth years. And there is no proof of that.
In "Journey to Babel" Sarek seems to give his age in Earth years.
And there may be a few examples of Earth years being specified. But most statements do not specify the type of years used, and there are some examples where characters using years of diferent lengths could explain chronolgical contradtictions.
There are many examples in Star Trek productions where events are dated to a year number.
It is common to assume that all such examples count the years from the same moment in time used as a calendar era. It is also common to assume that the calendar era used in all such examples is Anno Domini.
But I know of only about half a dozen examples where the calendar era, the time that the years are counted from, is specified. There is one example of a year BC, in TOS, and the rest are examples of years AD in tNG.
So accepting the possibility that different dates might be given using different calendar eras may be necessary to explain various chronological contradticitons in TOS.
And I hope this discussion will help people avoid making too man assumptions about TOS.
Which is why I'm glad Trek ended when it did, and why I've always wished post-TOS Trek (books, fan films, zines, etc.) would have focused on other ships in the Federation. I get so tired of The Big Three.
Reminds me of the uncut Das Boot with an extra 90 minutes of farts and booger-flipping.
I liked it...
I once had an idea for rebooting TOS in which the 5-year mission could be depicted over two seasons. The ship is refitted then launched on another 5-year voyage over the next two seasons where some key characters are kept, others move on and new ones are introduced. Another two seasons could be the “next generation” where the remaining characters you started with are replaced by a largely new crew. The way we address the passage of time in this concept allows you to jump weeks to months to even years, so the new crew could even be introduced already deployed sometime after the previous crew has already departed. Translated this means you don’t need a “coming together” style introduction. TOS’ two pilots began with their respective crews already out there while TNG onward felt compelled to do an introductory episode bringing the main characters together.
Essentially each two season arc depicts the highlights of that five year deployment.
- Seasons 1-2: Kirk’s first 5-year mission after replacing Pike at the beginning of the first season.
- Seasons 3-4: Kirk’s second 5-year voyage with some crew changes.
- Seasons 4-6: Kirk and remaining initial characters are promoted and move one. Ship is crewed by Picard and new crew.
The only real constant is it’s the same Enterprise throughout the series. Or you could retire the original Enterprise at the end of Kirk’s tenure and commission a new redesigned Enterprise with the new crew, but that entails additional costs for new models and new rather than redressed sets.
I had a number of ideas of what could be done with this kind of format. For example you could depict a 1-3 year Federation/Klingon war over the course of one season without the show becoming a space war series. The overall series concept is still “the final frontier,” “to seek out new life and new civilizations” and “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
This could be a genuine reboot where you can still really respect the original source materiel while not being chained to the original continuity. You could reintroduce elements from the original version only address them in different ways. Being a genuine reboot you are not trying to force fit it into an existing continuity. The mistake (one of) JJtrek made was insisting its new continuity was branched off the old and thereby erased the old. Of course, this led to never ending arguments among fandom.
There is a lot of talk today about Marvel’s shared universe across its films, but it’s not at all a new concept. Comics have a long history of a shared universe or universes. With the introduction of TNG Star Trek became a shared universe albeit an increasingly unwieldy one where each new crop of creators feel compelled to put their distinctive stamp on it that feels evermore disconnected from what came before.
Essentially each two season arc depicts the highlights of that five year deployment.
- Seasons 1-2: Kirk’s first 5-year mission after replacing Pike at the beginning of the first season.
- Seasons 3-4: Kirk’s second 5-year voyage with some crew changes.
- Seasons 4-6: Kirk and remaining initial characters are promoted and move one. Ship is crewed by Picard and new crew.
The only real constant is it’s the same Enterprise throughout the series. Or you could retire the original Enterprise at the end of Kirk’s tenure and commission a new redesigned Enterprise with the new crew, but that entails additional costs for new models and new rather than redressed sets.
I had a number of ideas of what could be done with this kind of format. For example you could depict a 1-3 year Federation/Klingon war over the course of one season without the show becoming a space war series. The overall series concept is still “the final frontier,” “to seek out new life and new civilizations” and “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
This could be a genuine reboot where you can still really respect the original source materiel while not being chained to the original continuity. You could reintroduce elements from the original version only address them in different ways. Being a genuine reboot you are not trying to force fit it into an existing continuity. The mistake (one of) JJtrek made was insisting its new continuity was branched off the old and thereby erased the old. Of course, this led to never ending arguments among fandom.
There is a lot of talk today about Marvel’s shared universe across its films, but it’s not at all a new concept. Comics have a long history of a shared universe or universes. With the introduction of TNG Star Trek became a shared universe albeit an increasingly unwieldy one where each new crop of creators feel compelled to put their distinctive stamp on it that feels evermore disconnected from what came before.
Last edited:
I think the concept behind the buckles is sound - it lets the ship track landing parties individually and automatically pull them back when in distress without the need for them to have to phone in. It would act as a power source for the uniforms (which we know are made from temperature sensitive material (interestingly, I saw an article in New Scientist recently which found that warming forearms is enough to keep hands warm without the need to wear gloves), plus an energy source for field effect personal forcefields seen in TAS, which would be essential to filter alien bacteria and viruses from getting into lungs and populating landing party microbiomes.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, we can't use stardates as a chronological indicator. You will notice later episodes within the same season or even a whole season later will have lower stardates than earlier episodes, and sometimes stardates overlap between two episodes that obviously couldn't have happened at the same time. The writer's guide said this about stardates:
Stardates gave a futurist flavor, while not tying the setting of the show to an exact time period in relation to the present-day real world, and not placing everything in a specific chronology that had to be kept track of.
Kor
1967 Trek Writers' Guide said:
Stardates gave a futurist flavor, while not tying the setting of the show to an exact time period in relation to the present-day real world, and not placing everything in a specific chronology that had to be kept track of.
Kor
I lean toward the series being a pretty full account of the entire 5 year mission. There had to be some "routine" days and weeks in there. I also like your setting WNMHGB to Kirk's earliest days on the Enterprise. Taking the ship over from Pike somewhere "out there" is an appealing idea. He functions with Pike's recent crew until they can refit for a fresh mission. As is common in Navy settings, crews rotate in and out.
I just wish we could have seen him taking command, and his bringing the E in intact at the end of his mission as episodes.
I just wish we could have seen him taking command, and his bringing the E in intact at the end of his mission as episodes.
I used averages to put episodes without stardates where it made sense to me, but that is really on a theory. It works for me, though.
Were it not for Kirk's line in TMP, at least two could have worked. I generally favor a chronology interpretation that allows for as much time for the Enterprise-A to be in service as possible, since it seems odd it would be retired so early. There is room for 5-11 years for it being in service, if we assume that the stardate of 8390 in ST:V refers to the year 2283, and the stardate of 9529 in ST:6 refers to 2295. There may be a reference to 2993 for the Khitomer Accords, but that still permits around 9 years of serivce for that ship under that name.
The dangerous-ness of Starfleet service, as with the size of Starfleet, is one of those things that will likely get a lot of debate. For drama's sake, a dangerous service with a very exciting, but possibly deadly five years seems useful, but as fans, we'd all likely want to imagine being a part of that organization, and would like to imagine it safer.
I think you make some good points in some of this. We try come up with an order, but there is not a lot we can tell with limited evidence.
I like the reference to 7 years here, since it the length of TNG, DS9, and Voyager.
I prefer to let the events spread over a couple years. It is unclear how much time is between the second and third movies, but it should be soon. The third film could itself take a few months to occur, and then the stay on Vulcan was said to be three months. There could actually be almost any amount of time between the fourth and fifth films. The stardate of 8128.76 for Spock's death and the stardate of 8454 for Star Trek V suggesting about three years for the time between those films works for me.
To suggest a totally different option, all those movies have stardates that start with 8. One could choose not to "move the decimal point," and cram all the movies into one year, the "8th year," which, ignoring a few contradictions, could be as early as 3 years after the end of the five-year mission, and then allow the Enterprise-A to serve until whatever date is chosen for Star Trek VI. Clearly this is not an option I favor, but it is worth mentioning, that going strictly by stardates, this could put the launch of NCC-1701-A as early as 2272, and then put Star Trek VI in 2273, 2283, or 2293. This whole timeline is getting pretty ridiculous, but it would fit having McCoy chief medical officer for 27 years, and make NCC-1701-A 21 years old at its retirement.
If we take the stardates literally, which can be a big if, there would be close to two years between those two episodes, one stating with 17 and the 31.
The 2001-2005 show Enterprise could have done this and it could have helped a lot to focus on important years in Star Trek's history. I think I read once they were afraid to jump, say, 3 years into the future and then realize that they wished they could do something in between. I don't see how that would be a problem often, if ever, with a little imagination and a bit of planning.
Similar threads
