Warped9's chronology....

[Warped9]

Every so often I know we like to chew over these things. So here's my latest update on the chronology I'm working on. I've tweaked a few points and I'm likely to add more.

One approach I'm using is that it isn't possible or even desirable to tie everything down. TOS' creators were wise in not getting too detailed in order to have flexibility for future creative licence. That's why there are gaps and ambiguities.

I also make occasional references to some printed works in regard only to specific historical points or in broad general terms when I feel the materiel was much more consistent with TOS than the later Treks were. You'll see what I mean when you see the chronology. Something like The Making of Star Trek is a substantive source in my view while something like John M. Ford's The Final Reflection does a good job conceptually of fleshing out historical background even if I think in errs in specifics.

The biggy is that it's got pics. I've also included new photo manips such as Starfleet Captain Garth and a live-action scene with a Slaver stasis box. I also want to try conjuring some pics of the main characters in their younger days.

It's still a work in progress: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KK0NGR5L

Let the criticism rip.

 

[Kagan]

Haven't finished reading it. I had to look for items on my own personal chronology...Donatu V, stardate order of episodes, TAS inclusion, etc.

Questions:
1) Did you throw out Kirk's age statement from "The Deadly Years"?
2) What did you use as your "base year" from which to work forward and backward?
3) Is this a work in progress, a basic shell, or a finished product?
4) Since James Blish's novelizations were based upon early scripts, will you be gleaning them for addition tidbits? Follow-up: What about Allan Dean Foster's TAS Logs?
5) Finally, one I've struggle with, will you include items from the Bantam and Pocket novels?

I've found it to be fun watching TOS and TAS to form a personal TOS/TAS chronology. I just haven't set a "base year".

 

[Warped9]

The only things I've used from novels are items that flesh something out that doesn't contradict what we know for show and is more consistent and reasonable than whatever post '79 Trek "establishes." Regarding Blish the only thing I'm really decided on is his take on the Earth/Romulan war. I don't date it exactly but I lean towards the basic 25-year conflict idea and the primitive technology.

The base year is tricky because whenever I used one I came up with conflicts, and so I ended up shifting the base year for things to fit. I also interpreted things somewhat differently than usual. Kirk stating he was 34 in "The Deadly Years" gave me a small clue. Kirk is suffering from early stages accelerating senility so perhaps he recalled his age when he first achieved command of the Enterprise: 34.

I also considered the dating in TMP with the idea of the Voyager series probes launched in the '70s and Decker's reference to "three hundred years ago," mindful that that doesn't have to be literally 300 years. It can be give or take a little. But as I've said somethings it isn't necessary to nail it exactly, just close enough.

"Official" Trek has the 5-year mission starting around 2266. Basically I've shifted that forward about five years to make things fit better overall. So my 5-year dating is 2271-2276.

I've also tried to avoid the "neat and tidy" approach that a lot of contemporary Trek seems to use and I've tried to incorporate a little more credible thinking. But different people can have different interpretations.

 

[Warped9]

Updated and revised: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4H1AYQOT

 

[Timo]

Some usual problems with the Kirk/Gary Mitchell backstory there... Now with a twist.

Supposedly Mitchell met Lieutenant Kirk, not Midshipman Kirk, at the Academy. Yet supposedly the two had met 15 years before "Where No Man". Now that you have moved TOS to the 2270s, you could have the meeting in 2255 (or '56 or '57, assuming 15 was a rounded-up number) and make Kirk a junior Lieutenant at that date already - an option that was never available for those who have TOS in the 2260s (so the alternate option of the two first meeting, then separating, then re-meeting when Midshipman Mitchell studies under Lieutenant Kirk, had to be used).

Since you already play fast and loose with Kirk's age, this should work just fine without affecting the rest of the chronology much.

I also considered the dating in TMP with the idea of the Voyager series probes launched in the '70s and Decker's reference to "three hundred years ago," mindful that that doesn't have to be literally 300 years.

I believe Decker actually says "over three hundred years ago", limiting the possibilities a bit... Then again, we don't have to assume that the Trek Voyagers I-VI were launched as late as the real-world Voyagers I-II. The 300+ year clearance could be easily arranged by launching the things earlier.

I like the use of stardate order, but I also am mindful of the fact that a four-digit stardate system where each year seems to cover a thousand dates if not more will not be very practical. The numbers should either have more digits, or should "roll over" every decade or so - e.g. allowing us to place "Magicks of Megas-Tu" after TOS rather than before it if we so wish.

...Alternately, perhaps Kirk's "one-two-five-four point four" in the TAS episode was merely a badly pronounced "five-two-five-four point four". The episode doesn't have any other stardates besides the possibly mispronounced opening log one, thankfully.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Hober Mallow]

What about all TOS's indications that it took place in the 22nd Century?

 

[Wingsley]

I tried something like this over 20 years ago on a Mac Plus running MS Word 3. It was fun, though I did not have access to the high-quality graphics you can take for granted.

Guinan said the Borg had been "evolving for thousands of centuries" which would necessitate an entry next to the T'Kon Empire / Exo III / Talos IV.

 

[Wingsley]

I see on Page 9 of your updated chronology that you assume the United Federation of Planets was not formally incorporated and Starfleet service established until after the dawn of the 23rd century. How did you arrive at that date?

 

[Neopeius]

I like your timeline, Warped, but I'd really love to see the notes you used to create the timeline--an episode by episode list of whenever an absolute or relative date was mentioned.

 

[Shaw]

Something to keep in mind when collecting episodes together in one year blocks... the Paradise Syndrome would eat up a massive chunk out of any year. Consider these aspects:

• The Enterprise was disabled beyond self repair and the events seen in the episode take place over a period of about 60 days.
• When the Enterprise was damaged it most likely sent out a call for help (and for a tow back to Starbase), and given the urgent nature of the Enterprise's mission, help would have been sent at the best possible speed... which took more than 60 days (as no help arrived in the episode).
• Even if help arrived the next day after the end of the episode, one could guess that the tow back to Starbase would be at least 60 days if not longer (as one ship towing another wouldn't be making the best speeds).
• It would take time once at the Starbase to repair the Enterprise... 4 to 6 weeks, though I'm sure Scott got it done in 2 to 3.

I would venture a conservative estimate that the events and consequences of Paradise Syndrome would take about 5 to 6 months.

 

[FalTorPan]

If I were making a speculative chronology, I would not assume that one season of television episodes spans one calendar year. I would only use evidence in the episodes themselves to speculate the time between episodes. With this approach, it's possible that one season's episodes might span three years, while another spans three months. So be it.

 

[Noname Given]

If I were making a speculative chronology, I would not assume that one season of television episodes spans one calendar year. I would only use evidence in the episodes themselves to speculate the time between episodes. With this approach, it's possible that one season's episodes might span three years, while another spans three months. So be it.

Very true. In te TOS third season episode The Paradise Syndrome it spans many months (and that's from dilog in the episode between Spock and Dr. McCoy). Also, you but the S.S. Valiant's loss in the 2290's although Kirk states "more than 200 years ago" in the episode meaning it would have to be in the 2060ies (30 years is a lot of 'fudging' given a direct from episode quote.

 

[Warped9]

I'm thinking of an addendum that covers specific references in specific episodes.

In regards to Mitchell's reference to "Lieutenant" Kirk in the Academy. I interpreted that as youthful teasing to get under Kirk's skin back in the day when Kirk seemed so serious and ambitious to advance.

Good point about "The Paradise Syndrome." I'll look at it again. One can see, though, that I don't accept that one season equals one year. I interpret the three seasons plus TAS, but minus WNMHGB, to be the bulk if not almost the whole of the 5-year mission. Another thing to consider (or reconsider as I'm doing this moment in fact) is what exactly does the 5-year mission mean? At least 5 years? At most 5 years? Or about 5 years? The way I've now got it set up there's an average of about 19 days between major events (episodes). If I stretched it out to 5-1/2 years then there'd be about three weeks on average between major events. I think this matters because it allows for some plausible down time when the Enterprise is doing more routine stuff and/or just traveling from point to point.

The issue regarding what century TOS is set in gets complicated. "Space Seed" and "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" strongly suggest the 22nd century. Yet "The Squire Of Gothos" suggests the 27th century. Finally TMP suggests the mid to late 23rd. I finally settled on the 23rd simply because it allowed more time for things to have happened that were referenced in other episodes and because some of the things suggested for the 21st century if TOS were set in the 22nd just didn't impress me as credible. To some extent it came down to not interpreting certain references literally. Kirk's remark in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" that being locked up for 200 years would be just about right can be taken as sarcasm. The references in "Space Seed" can also be fudged because although Khan was overthrown in 1996 it isn't established exactly when he and his followers disappeared and took flight--it could have been a few years into the 21st century during which Colonel Green was mucking around. After all, even though Osama bin Laden is notoriously wanted he's apparently still on the loose if he's even still alive.

For this to work we also have to accept that TOS' mid to late 20th and 21st centuries are not ours.

The only information I can add here now are notes on the references and my thinking behind them. The only other thing are a few more images. At this point I'm working on images to depict the main characters when they were younger as well as personalities and ships of the past.

Here's the lastest revision: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KZWYDT53

Note that some of the images may be revised when I have something better. I like the pics of a younger Sarek and Amanda, Captain Garth at Axanar and Stephen Boyd as Robert April. I also intend the Farragut to be something other than a Constitution-class. I've also got ideas for the Valiant (both of them), the Bonaventure and the Horizon even though I don't really have to show them.

I'm also considering doing the post TMP part of the timeline separately. That would convey more of a clean break from "official" continuity and where I could also illustrate my tweaking of that period so that it fllows more consistently from the TOS timeline. Mind you, I don't think you have to tweak it much.

 

[Warped9]

Here are a couple of new things for my chronology.

The first image is my take on the Valiant that's lost at Eminiar 7 in "A Taste Of Armeggedon." The second image is a work-in-progress of my idea of the Farragut referenced in "Obsession." There's about forty years between the two events and I wanted to show some idea of evolution in design from the Valiant to the Farragut to the Enterprise.

The Farragut design has something of that TOS look I think while still not being a reuse of the familiar design. The ship is supposed to be about 3/4 of the size of a Constitution-class.

For the Farragut I still have to add extra detail: surface detail, windows, running lights, markings, whatever else I can think of. I elected to go with a new design extrapolated from an early MJ sketch rather than use the Surya type frigate which had been my initial idea.

Both ships are completely rendered in Photoshop.

 

[Noname Given]

Here are a couple of new things for my chronology.

The first image is my take on the Valiant that's lost at Eminiar 7 in "A Taste Of Armeggedon." The second image is a work-in-progress of my idea of the Farragut referenced in "Obsession." There's about forty years between the two events and I wanted to show some idea of evolution in design from the Valiant to the Farragut to the Enterprise.

The Farragut design has something of that TOS look I think while still not being a reuse of the familiar design. The ship is supposed to be about 3/4 of the size of a Constitution-class.

1) I do like that design and would say you could infer that a Starship 50 years prior to the NCC 1701 U.S.S. Enterprise could have a different design (nothing about the Class or any other details were stated RE: The U.S.S. Valiant in A Taste of Aramgeddon).

2) I'm honestly NOT trying to be argumentative, but, given that the 'Starship Class' U.S.S. Enterprise was in service 13 years prior to Kirk's 5 year mission (per events in The Managerie); why whould you assume the incident Kirk went through 11 years earlier (refered to and talked about in Obsession) occurred on a non-'Starship Class' ship. In fact it was stated that the U.S.S. Farrgut was not itself destroyed or decomissioned, just that a majority of the crew had been killed. Also, by other indications in the series, (and it's name being dropped in other TOS episodes); wouldn't it be more logical to assume that the Farragut was in fact a contemporary Starship Class vessel, and was in fact still in active service as Kirk was conducting his current 5 year mission?

 

[Wingsley]

Noname Given makes a good "Obsesssion" point.

I think it has been widely assumed from the "Court Martial" ship roster in Commodore Stone's office that Farragut and Intrepid were the same class of starship as the Enterprise, or at least they were both Class I starships of the same era. This was further cemented by Franz Joseph's 1975 Tech Manual. The central concern here would be that "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry lists Farragut as the same class as Kirk's Enterprise. As far as I'm concerned, the Farragut under Garrovick's command was most likely configured the same as Pike's Enterprise, but it could have been of an entirely different class of ship. The later possibility, while not out of the question, seems unlikely. If Garrovick's Farragut were anything other than a Connie, I would expect her to most likely be a Class I ship of the same era as Pike's boat, maybe a sistership of Starscape's Spitfire. (I have no trouble admitting I'm a big fan of Starscape's designs.)

I am also thrilled with what you are doing here along with MadMan1701A's Constellation project. I would love to see the concepts behind both projects combined, to create a pre-Constitution-class starscruiser ("Magna Carta" class?) that exhibits the simplicity and smoothness of your design with some of the shapes and overall configuration aspects of MadMan1701A's Constellation. (I love MadMan1701A's Kelvin-like saucer, as well as the shape of the nacelles and placement of the pylons.)

All that having been said, that's a great photo-doctoring of "Lt. Kirk". Now, just where were on the night of Stardate 0375.2, sir? Are you sure you want to stick to that story???

 

[Warped9]

The points raised are quite fair. My only real basis for my perspective is that in "Obsession" there's a reference that about half the Farragut's crew were killed by the cloud creature--"it killed more than one hundred crewman." or something to that effect. That's only a quarter or less of a 400-430 complement for a Constitution-class. Mind you GR's initial take on the ship's crew was 203, but that was near immediately thrown out after "The Cage." You could still argue that while it was true for the Enterprise then so it could also have been true for the Farragut.

My other thinking is that in the Cage era there likely weren't "twelve like it" yet, but maybe half a dozen at most. However, it's entirely possible that the earlier Farragut of Garrovick's era has since been retired and decommissioned and a Constitution-class Farragut now exists.

At any rate here's the final image. I was aiming for something that had a Cage era feel to it.

There's meant to be something of an evolutionary link between the Valiant and the Farragut. The earlier era (lacks sufficient detail at this point) would be more rough and bulkier looking. The newer design reflects attributes seen even more evident in the Constitution-class, more gentle curves and more elegence (if you will) in overall design. The newer and significantly more advanced technology of the 2240s was being fitted into these existing Farragut type ships while the Connies were wholly new from scratch. While the Farras were the cruisers of their day they became equivalent to frigates in the Connie's era.

One thing I should try to do is dirty the ship, that is add touches of weathering as was done to TOS' 11ft filming miniature. As it is my Farragut looks like it was just launched new out of drydock of the late 2220s.

 

[Warped9]

In regards to lineage and continuity.

My thinking is basically this: the Valiant was an older design assimilated into the Star Fleet service when it was established in the 2200s and much less advanced than the newer ships launched in the 2220s. Or the Valiant could have been one of the newer ships that was just fantastically unlucky when it got to Eminiar 7 (in that case then my design is wrong and I'd have to render another image. Hmm).

Somehow I don't see the Valiant's Captain bringing his crew down to Eminiar 7 to just complacently stroll into desintegration booths anymore than Kirk doing it. I think it more likely the Eminians and/or Vendikans got lucky and were able to blow the ship out of orbit like they were unable to do with the Enterprise fifty years later.

On further consideration I think I got the registry wrong. I'm thinking of this as a sistership of the Republic 1371. In that case the registry should be in the 1300 or 1400 range and not 1500.

 

[Warped9]

On another issue. I'd love to get a hold of some pics of the original cast in their late teens to early or mid 20s. How better to photomannip images of the TOS crew in their earlier days. So far Shatner is the only one I've been able to get a decent shot for. I've come across some shots of a younger Nimoy and Deforest Kelly but none of them are really suitable for what I need.

The cast from the NuTrek film don't count as far as I'm concerned.

Bummer.

 

[Warped9]

More, I need more.......

Try these.

Early concept for the Bonaventure:

And Valiant mentioned in WNMHGB:

I'm not that crazy about my Bonaventure idea, but I rather like the Valiant.

My thinking behind the Valiant. It could have initially been built as a fast relativistic starship capable of reaching 90-95% of light (for the crew to benefit from the relativistic time dilation) and was on its maiden voyage when Cochrane introduced his FTL space warp technology. On its return the Valiant found itself obsolete almost overnight. A collaboration was reached wherein the Valiant was retrofit with a space warp drive. It was the best of both worlds at the time for if the new stardrive went down inflight then the ship could resort to its already existent stardrive to get home. It would take years, but for the crew they could still benefit from the relativistic effect. Not long after, of course, perhaps after a voyage or two the ship disappears and its recorder marker is found nearly two centuries later by the U.S.S. Enterprise.