I think it's based on Old Ironsides. U.S.S. Constitution.
The first five year mission?
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
Yeah, that's why I qualified it with the "released in the 80s", all of the officially licensed publications during that period went with the Chronology's early timeline, presumably because of the popularity of TWOK (or somebody in the licensing office just liked that one better and decided that was the one everyone had to use). Oddly enough, Chronology was the first place I recall seeing the early timeline, I had always thought TOS was later. That may have been because I first saw the late timeline in one of the Star Trek Poster Books from the mid-70s. Considering those were edited by Mandel and Drexler, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that it was the one that came to dominate.
I'm on the fence as to whether TAS is part of the five year mission, but I also fell anything before and after TOS is fiction.
Yeah, me too. TAS is part of TOS. It's very obviously meant to be part of the same show, just animated.
Depends on who you talk to and who is holding the canon reins, I guess. I tend to run home to the Franz Joseph Tech Manual, the Spaceflight Chronology, and FASA for things TOS that aren't stated explicitly in the show. I don't think any of those three are considered canon (I know FASA isn't) but there ya have it.
Has the Franz Joseph / Gene Roddenberry Estates resolve their legal kerfuffles yet?Depends on who you talk to and who is holding the canon reins, I guess. I tend to run home to the Franz Joseph Tech Manual, the Spaceflight Chronology, and FASA for things TOS that aren't stated explicitly in the show. I don't think any of those three are considered canon (I know FASA isn't) but there ya have it.
No, not 'canon', but there's also the notes on ship names (which was FJ's reference) in The Making of Star Trek. FJ's fourteen ships come from the memos between Fontana, Justman, and Roddenberry. (The Defiant got pushed into the Bonhomme Richard class of heavy cruisers since it wasn't on the list, the memos being shortly before the third season.)Depends on who you talk to and who is holding the canon reins, I guess. I tend to run home to the Franz Joseph Tech Manual, the Spaceflight Chronology, and FASA for things TOS that aren't stated explicitly in the show. I don't think any of those three are considered canon (I know FASA isn't) but there ya have it.
There isn't a kerfuffle. The FJ estate owns designs unique to FJD;s work. If Paramount wants to use them (and they do, occasionally) then they pay. Roddenberry doesn't have anything to do with it, actually.
I gather that there was a kerfuffle when they included an FJ ship in the most recent season of Picard. But again, nothing to do with the Roddenberry estate. It was just a bill that Paramount hadn't planned on paying. That's what I heard, anyway.
And when Discovery used the UFP logo from the tech manual in the first half of Season 1.
I believe in the book it actually says "Defiance" instead of Defiant, and does not carry the number 1764.
I consider those names and numbers canon...but not necessarily of the ships that were actually built, instead I see them as she ships that were requested by Starfleet, and what got built and named may be different. The around 100 ships of the heavy cruiser type named after stars when the first few of the class where names after famous ships suggests to me that those are placeholder names until Starfleet officially changes them to names consistent with the rest of the class...or maybe it doesn't bother to change the names every time and the result is that some ships have names of famous warships, and others are just named after stars?
And of course, although the FJSTM suggests that there will be replacements for the lost cruisers and assigns them numbers, we now know that the other USS Constellation was number NX-1974
One issue I have with TAS is the assignment of stardates for the episodes. By stardates, one episode is before the original series, and only four after the original series, while the rest are concurrent with series (one set in Season 1, one set in Season 2 and 15
crammed during Season 3). If TAS was meant to be a continuation of TOS, then why didn't "they" simply put all the TAS episode stardates after the TOS episodes? 
Alan Dean Foster changed the stardates in his some of his novelizations of the TAS episodes. For example, he changed The Magicks of Megas-Tu stardate from 1254.4 to 5524.5, and yes, smack dab in the middle of TOS Season 3. All his other changes also put them in the 5500's, too. <Sigh.
>My fix (recon) for TAS stardates: set all the TAS episodes starting at 6000 spacing the 22 episodes by production number at an average of ~14-15 stardates apart.
Last edited:
I always think of TAS as TOS Season 4.
I've worked out my own system for the movie era stardates, but it only takes effect from TWOK onward, and is not a perfect fit.
Basically, we start with Stardate 8130 being around March 22nd 2285, and proceed from there to about early January 2293, with stardate 9522. And we get roughly 178.3 stardates per year. That nicely puts TFF at about January 2287 (stardate 8454) but is not a precise fit for the other ones, such as TVH. Still, it works fairly well (although dates in ST6 are a bit screwy, being variously 'two months' or only days, and the digits barely rising by movie end)
Which ship?
One of the sets of trinkets that is being handed out in Ten Forward is an FJ Federation Class Dreadnought.
I heard an interview with Karen Schnaubelt on The Inglorious Treksperts where they mentioned Picard and this subject never came up. So I'm not sure what to make of that as far that story goes. Maybe it's totally false. Maybe she didn't bring it up or it got edited from the podcast. Maybe something I have no guess at. Who knows?
I heard an interview with Karen Schnaubelt on The Inglorious Treksperts where they mentioned Picard and this subject never came up. So I'm not sure what to make of that as far that story goes. Maybe it's totally false. Maybe she didn't bring it up or it got edited from the podcast. Maybe something I have no guess at. Who knows?
I wonder if this was the direction Okuda was thinking. If it were 100 stardates per year, that would fit with the idea of a moved decimal point. However, rounding your number to 180 or 200 stardates per year, it still seems like an arbitrary number, if that was really how they got to the number used in Star Trek 6. Why pick 180 units per year? it is interesting that 2887 is the year given for Star Trek 5 in the chronology, so it does fit the pattern somehow. I guess it is about two units per earth day. It is still cool that you worked that number out, and it does sort of work for the movies.
Are the Khitomer Accords stated as being signed in 2293 onscreen? If not, moving them to 2295, to work with a stardate of 9529 would help give 1701A he longest time in service possible.
Well, nobody knows why the stardate number was really used in most of those cases. Mostly it seems to have been picked arbitrarily. Sometimes to sound vaguely like the year the film was aired, albeit.
And you can't move to 2295 without contradicting Generations and multiple TNG dates, including in 'Relics', either?
Last edited:
They’re just numbers and it’s not history. Change the numbers to fit the story if that’s what is needed.
I can accept "75 years" in Relics is rounding. As far as the "78 years" in "Generations," there's not much that can be done with that. If it had said something less definite like "in the next century" or "On Another USS Enterprise" that might have made a difference.
78 years was in all the promo material for the first season of TNG, wasn't it?
I just took a quick read through of The Next Generation Companion opening chapters leading up to airing of Encounter at Farpoint, and I can't find any references to TNG being set 78 years after TOS.
There's mention of 100 years, 200 years, the 24th and the 25th centuries, but no 78.
The promo material release says, 'The 24th Century Adventure is about to begin'.
That's the advertising I remember seeing in my local newspaper and TV Guide. I think even the commercials only mention the 24th Century.
If I still had my FASA TNG Officer's Manual, I think that might be the first mention of it being 78 years after TOS.
Similar threads
