Star Trek Timeline

By James Dixon



This timeline is split into 20 parts, linked here:

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06] [07] [08] [09] [10]
[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
Notes: including explanation of acronyms, etc.

Notes and Introduction:
Index

     *********************************************************************
     *        Star Trek Chronology (Version 7.0) Notes    9406.20        *
     *********************************************************************

This (James Dixon) Star Trek Chronology file is without a doubt (as far as I know, at least) the most exhaustively researched and information-packed timeline of the Star Trek Universe available (without insulting the intel- ligence of hardcore Trekkers by bombarding them with commonly-known Trek facts, that is). You might not agree with All the information here (I certainly don't) but it is a good read and all of it comes from the episodes, movies, and publications. Certain items which are conjectural are noted, and a good amount of space in this section is devoted to dis- cussing them. This 7th edition is now titled "Fandom Star Trek Chronology" rather than just "Star Trek Chronology" (as it had been named for the past 7 years) to prevent confusion with the recent Okuda "Chronology."

This is the first edition to include Spaceflight Chronology information as well as data from gaming systems. All comic books have also been avoided since I personally doubt their accuracy, do not collect them, and am still recovering from the 1st generation of Star Trek comic books from way back when. Pocket Books' new series of "Young Reader" Star Trek adventures also aren't included included, for similar reasons. But considering how I promised not to include FASA (and have skipped around it and the Spaceflight book for a decade) in half a dozen previous versions, I wouldn't just yet count them out in future editions. On the other hand, all of the novels and short stories are included however, though it is very doubtful that they all occur in the same Star Trek timeline. Previous versions of this Chronology included only past references of data in novels and short stories falling in the latter portion of the 5-year mission (c. 2263-2265) due to the complexity of arranging the bulk of these novels into an exact order. Beginning in the 6th version, all "5th year" novels, up to the date of publication, were arranged in a reasonable chronological order, complete with stardates (whenever available). This 7th version features Earth date approximations of TNG stardates and stardate approximations of TNG Earth dates. More about that, FASA, SFC, and Star Fleet Battles is to be found later on in bulky sections devoted to these hotly debated subjects.

The Five-year Mission

The dates during which the famous 5 year mission occurs have been obtained from numerous sources. The original Star Trek Time Line was written by Chuck Graham and published in the fanzine Menagerie V, c. 1974. It was a mere two pages long with less than 3 dozen dates up to the start of the mission (2260 A.D.), but it was reprinted in Geoffrey Mandel's Starfleet Handbook and apparently made its way around in fandom. The Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual went by these dates and all other publications and blueprints followed suit and to this very day Technical Fandom still very much abides by this chronology. Around 1980, a poorly researched book came out called Star Trek Space- flight Chronology which totally blew away all previously established dates...

How was 2260 A.D. established for the start of the 5-year mission? It's quite obvious that Star Trek is set in the 23rd Century, this is an automatic "given" from sources such as The Making of Star Trek. The question then arose as to exactly WHEN in this century.

Star Trek's second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" had the "Enterprise" recover the recorder-marker of an Earth ship at the edge of the galaxy, the S.S. "Valiant." It was mentioned repeatedly that the "Valiant" had been lost 200 years ago. For an Earth vessel to travel that far it had to have had warp drive (despite Kirk's comment about the inferior impulse engines of the "Valiant"). Warp drive was developed by Earth in the 21st Century as we later would meet the inventor, Zefram Cochrane in "Metamorphosis" who disappeared "150 years ago" by McCoy's reckoning. He was an old man at the time, in Cochrane's own words, before the Companion rejuvenated him. Furthermore, he went on to identify Mr. Spock as a Vulcan (questionably), but had never heard of the United Federation of Planets. These facts alone place "Where No Man Has Gone Before" no sooner than the mid-23rd Century.

In the first season episode "Miri," the "Enterprise" encounters a duplicate Earth where, we assume, history ran parallel to that on the real Earth. Shortly after beamdown, Spock comments that it is Earth circa 1960. Later on in the episode, Kirk and Spock come across an ancient piano. Kirk asks Mr. Spock its age and Spock replies with the figure of 300 years. 1960 + 300 = 2260 A.D.

"Space Seed," the episode by which Spaceflight Chronology, and later FASA, falsely places Star Trek around the early 23rd Century, must be ignored. If we examine this episode closely from the start, Kirk was confused by the age of the S.S. "Botany Bay." When first spotted, Kirk mistakenly refers to it as a DY-500 series ship and Spock corrects him "Much older, DY-100 series." After Khan's revival Kirk tells him he was sleeping for "Two centuries we estimate." The DY-100 series was an interplanetary ship, according to Spock, last produced and launched in the late 20th Century. Obviously the DY-500 came much later (mid- or late-21st Century). Kirk absent-mindedly told Khan the two centuries after the DY-500 series (c. 2050 + 200 = 2250). Likewise, the date mentioned in "Squire of Gothos" must also be ignored (placing Star Trek centuries LATER in time).

The animated series which followed went on to support the 2260 Star Trek date. "The Terratin Incident" dealt with a lost Earth colony stranded on the planet Cepheus. At the beginning of the episode, Uhura picks up a message in interstat code, commenting that interstat's been out of use for two centuries. We later learn that the colony had transporters, which Mr. Spock was not surprised to learn for an early Earth colony. The colony was originally named Terra 10 and we assume that there were at least 9 other interstellar Earth colony attempts previously. This suggests that transporter technology was developed in the 21st Century, probably shortly after warp drive. The episode "The Slaver Weapon" introduced us to the Kzinti (borrowed from Larry Niven's Known Space books). We learn from Mr. Sulu that the Kzinti fought 4 wars with Mankind and lost all of them--the last one being 200 years ago. Indeed, Star Trek cannot take place any EARLIER than 2260. In order to defeat the Kzinti, Earth had to have had spaceflight and warp-driven ships. Quite possibly the development of warp drive and transporter technology shortly thereafter enabled Earth to conquer the Kzinti.

The novels which shortly followed supported this dating system. The dates mentioned in "World Without End" place Star Trek some time in the mid-23rd Century and the novel "Perry's Planet" is set around an Earth colony launched about 300 years ago (a bit on the high side). Later novels would, unfortunately, use FASA/Spaceflight Chronology dates ("The Final Reflection," "Final Frontier" and "Strangers From The Sky"), which sets Star Trek around 2208 A.D.

Thus, the voyages of the "Enterprise" under Kirk's command occured from 2260-2265 A.D. Other novels and references "fine-tuned" this a bit. "Enterprise: The First Adventure" tells us that Kirk took command of the "Enterprise" even earlier, 2258, based upon his age. Furthermore, it would have taken time for Kirk to familiarize himself with the ship before taking on any major missions. Shortly after "Enterprise" comes the novel "Strangers From the Sky (Book II)," and then on to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (late 2259). This last episode takes up the bulk of time between 2258 and 2260: the two-way trip from U.F.P. space to the Energy Barrier at the edge of our galaxy. Early 2260 is also spent uprating the "Enterprise" ("Constitution" class to the specs of the "Bonhomme Richard" class to accommodate the more detailed "Enterprise" model--but that's ANOTHER file in itself!) and of course the installation of new systems and the institution of new uniforms ("Corbomite Maneuver" onwards). The 5 year mission therefore "officially" begins right after the "Enterprise" returns and is refitted following the second pilot episode, in early 2260. (Kirk's prologue explaining "Its five year mission..." isn't even incorporated into the title sequence of the 2nd pilot episode!).

Now if the order of the Original episodes are examined, you will notice them to be in Production Order. Considering the minute changes of systems (and uniforms worn) aboard the "Enterprise," there is simply no other logical way to chronicle the episodes. Aired Order begins with "The Man Trap," when clearly the first episode is "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Taking them in Stardate Order is an intriguing idea, but stardates do not hold up when the additional stardates of the animated series and the novels are incorporated. In fact, stardates actually OVERLAP in certain episodes ("Corbomite Maneuver" and "The Man Trap"). In addition, many novelists don't take stardates seriously. We have to live with the information in The Making of Star Trek that stardates have no real chronological bearing for the "Enterprise", even though the latest Next Generation episodes have been trying to keep the stardate order consistent with the aired order.

Examining the Chronology you will see that the first season episodes span the first two years, 2260 and 2261 and the second and third season epsides are in 2262 and 2263 respectively. Why? "Charlie X" is set in November as Kirk mentions Thanksgiving--the latter half of the year. The episodes "Court Martial" and "The Menagerie" were filmed one after another yet both take place at the SAME starbase 11 (despite Asherman's numerical errors in his Star Trek Compendium--we have seen only ONE starbase in the original series: Starbase 11). We first see the base being commanded by Commodore Stone and then we see it commanded by Commodore Mendez. Obviously there is a considerable gap of time between these two episodes. Furthermore, in "Day of the Dove," Kang states that the Klingon Empire and the Federation have been at peace for 3 years, NOT 2 as we would believe (deliberately overlooking the possibility that he was referring to Klingon years).

Immediately following the original episodes are the 22 animated episodes. They are not in Production Order, Aired Order, or Stardate Order. They follow in the order in which Alan Dean Foster novelized them. Why? A.D.F. has contributed more to the Star Trek Universe than many other novelists in his Star Trek Log series of ten books. They are linked together in his own unique order, with the last 4 adaptations blown-up into full-length novels, greatly expanded and providing a rich source of information to Fandom. The "Klolode" class ship name was taken from Star Trek Log 4, the concept of transporter patterns being used for security purposes was taken from Star Trek Log 3, and the rich background of the characters Arex and M'ress were drawn from these novelizations. Each of which was far more faithful to the original work than any of James Blish's attempts. "The Survivor" is said to take place on Christmas and thus is considered the last episode of 2263. The bulk of the Star Trek novels follow the animated episodes in the remaining 2263 and 2264 years. Early 2265 marks the end of the mission and "The Lost Years" follow immediately. Two and a half years after, in 2267, Star Trek-The Motion Picture takes place.

As previously stated, most Trek novels are set during the "5th year" of the 5-year mission. They bridge the gap between the 22 cartoon adventures and Star Trek-The Motion Picture. It is highly unlikely that All of them actually occur in the same universe or timeline--certainly not in the brief year of time allocated. Still, I have made an attempt to arrange the novels and short stories into a reasonable order. I've also added on a few notes that helped me sort them, featuring glaring errors contained within. It is not flawless, but is probably as close as we'll ever come to a chronology of early/mid 2264 to March 2265: 

       "The Galactic Whirlpool" by David Gerrold  [M'Ress & Arex still
     aboard--along with Riley]
       "Spock Must Die!" by James Blish  [Yeoman Rand aboard--takes up
     better than 176 days, p.57!]
       "Spock, Messiah!" by Cogswell & Spano  [Direct reference to "Spock
     Must Die!"]
       "Mudd's Angels" ("The Business As Usual During Altercations") by
     J.A. Lawrence  [Numerous Blish elements abound & ends in time warp
     back in time]
       *"Star Trek: The New Voyages" edited by Marshak & Culbreath* ["Mind
         Sifter" is an alternate universe story]
       "The Price of the Phoenix" by Marshak & Culbreath
       "The Fate of the Phoenix" by Marshak & Culbreath
       "Planet of Judgment" by Joe Haldeman
       "World Without End" by Joe Haldeman
       *"Star Trek: The New Voyages 2" edited by Marshak & Culbreath*
       "Vulcan!" by Kathleen Sky
       "Death's Angel" by Kathleen Sky
       "The Starless World" by Gordon Eklund
       "Devil World" by Gordon Eklund
       "Trek to Madworld" by Stephen Goldin
       "Perry's Planet" by Jack C. Haldeman II
     ------------NEW NOVELS----------------------------------------------------
     #2  "The Entropy Effect" by Vonda N. McIntrye
     #3  "The Klingon Gambit" by Robert E. Vardeman
     #12 "Mutiny on the Enterprise" by Robert E. Vardeman
     #6  "The Abode of Life" by Lee Correy  [Follows 'Klingon activity.'
     Rand aboard.]
     #11 "Yesterday's Son" by A.C. Crispin
     #14 "The Trellisane Confrontation" by David Dvorkin
     #15 "Corona" by Greg Bear  [Spock is 79!?]
     #19 "The Tears of the Singers" by Melinda Snodgrass
     #21 "Uhura's Song" by Janet Kagan
     #22 "Shadow Lord" by Laurence Yep
     #23 "Ishmael" by Barbara Hambly
     #24 "Killing Time" by Della Van Hise  [Chekov on 2-week leave.
     Romulans have been silent for the past 5 years!?]


     #28 "Crisis on Centaurus" by Brad Ferguson  [Joanna is 21. "Court
     Martial" over 2 years ago]


     #29 "Dreadnought!" by Diane Carey  [Ref. to '4th year refitting' &
     newly painted insignia.  Last time in Sol system was 1 year ago!
     "Enterprise" now carries assault craft.  Reference to Memory Gamma.
     Scott has a mustache & a little gray.  Upgraded hangar bay.]
     #31 "Battlestations!" by Diane Carey  [Weeks after "Dreadnought!"  Lt.
     Commander Sulu.  Trilithium has been synthesized.  U.S.S. "Hood"
     assisting "Enterprise."]


     #34 "Dreams of the Raven" by Carmen Carter  [Kyle is Transporter
     Chief.  Nurse Chapel aboard.  McCoy is 48?]
     #36 "How Much For Just The Planet?" by John M. Ford  [Very silly and
     unrealistic.]
     #41 "The Three-Minute Universe" by Barbara Paul  [Transporter Chief is
     still Kyle.  Chapel is still a nurse.]
     #42 "Memory Prime" by Gar & Judith Reeves-Stevens  [Nurse Chapel is
     aboard.  Transporter Chief is Kyle.  Mention of a Horta recently
     enrolled in Star Fleet Academy (Naraht?).  Scotty considers trilithium
     to be a fictitious dream.]
     GN 7 "Prime Directive" by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens  [Takes
     up over 4 months.  Reference to the Nobel & Z. Magnees ceremonies in
     "Memory Prime."]
     #45 "Double, Double" by Michael Jan Friedman
     #56 "Legacy" by Michael Jan Friedman
     #46 "The Cry of the Onlies" by Judy Klass
     #52 "Home is the Hunter" by Dana Kramer-Rolls
     #61 "Sanctuary" by John Vornholt
     #64 "The Starship Trap" by Mel Gilden
     #27 "Mind Shadow" by J.M. Dillard  [Security Chief Lt. Tomson and
     Ensign al-Baslama introduced.  Tomson noted as serving long on the
     "Enterprise" but only recently promoted to Chief.  Nurse Chapel
     aboard.  Repetitive mispellings: Ensign 'Chekhov' and Transporter
     Chief 'Lyle'!]
     #30 "Demons" by J.M. Dillard  [2nd main-stream Tomson novel.  Last
     shore leave was 7 months ago.]
     #32 "Chain of Attack" by Gene DeWeese  [Followup to "The Abode of
     Life."  Lt. IngriD Tomson aboard.]
     #37 "Bloodthirst" by J.M. Dillard  [Intership beaming, field suits.
     3rd main-stream Tomson novel.  Given date: October 31st!]
     #43 "The Final Nexus" by Gene DeWeese  [Followup to "Chain of Attack"
     which occurred 'a couple of months ago.'  Lt. Tomson is Security
     Chief.  Chapel is still a nurse.]
     #55 "Renegade" by Gene DeWeese  [Intership beaming, field effect
     suits, atmospheric containment field on hangar deck, Kyle is
     Transporter Chief.]
     #13 "The Wounded Sky" by Diane Duane  [Security Chief Matlock(!) and
     Lt. Harb Tanzer aboard.  Kirk's 1st meeting with Lt. Commander Lia
     Burke--being trained to be a nurse by Nurse Chapel.]
     #50 "Doctor's Orders" by Diane Duane  [Tomson is Security Chief.
     McCoy has Commander rank.  Lia Burke acting as Head Nurse while Chapel
     offship doing doctorate practices.  Kirk's birthday was "not too long
     ago."]
     ------------2265?----------------------------------------------------
     #26 "Pawns and Symbols" by Majliss Larson  [followup to "Procrustean
     Petard" of "Star Trek: The New Voyages."  Given date: January 1st!]
     #8  "Black Fire" by Sonni Cooper  [STTMP uniforms first issued.
     Naturally-occuring trilithium discovered.  Chekov promoted to Lt.
 
     "Hood" destroyed.  "Enterprise" heads for new repairs...]


         "The Lost Years" by J.M. Dillard  [Bridges Mission & STTMP]
     ------------2266-----------------------------------------------------
     #54 "A Flag Full of Stars" by Brad Ferguson  [The author blew the date
     by 3 years by having it set during the Apollo Moon Landing
     Tricentennial!]
     #70 "Traitor Winds" by L.A. Graf [Again, shifted by 3 years--and also
     curiously 1 year earlier with respect to the Okuda chronology.]
Note that the two "New Voyages" books are collections of short stories. Not all of which are set in the same timeline. This is especially true for "Visit to a Weird Planet Revisited" (a comedy where the actors transpose with their characters) and "Mind Sifter" (involving Captain Spock rescuing Kirk A.W.O.L. for a year in Earth's past).

Here's how I developed it. The novels were first arranged in order of publication. This was done because later novels would sometimes build upon earlier ones (i.e. particular events and characters). The influences of the films are also evident in the novels and the advances of technology. Next, all novels set after Star Trek-The Motion Picture were eliminated, along with the few novels set during the original series ("Web of the Romulans," "The Vulcan Academy Murders," "The IDIC Epidemic" and the more recent "Ghost-Walker") or before it ("Vulcan's Glory," "Enterprise: The First Adventure"). Next, novels were grouped by author, in most instances. Many writers recycle minor characters, and considering crew rotations at starbase layovers it seems plausible that they would occur very close to one another. The character of Dr. Rigel in "Vulcan!" reappearing in "Death's Angel" is a good example. There are exceptions, of course. An example is "Yesterday's Son" and "Time For Yesterday." Both are by the same author, A.C. Crispin, yet "Time" clearly is set between Star Trek-The Motion Picture and ST II. Sequels are common, including "Battlestations!" which immediately follows "Dreadnought!" Finally, arranging the novels by data supplied in each--no easy task! The easiest to handle were the 'chained' adventures such as "Spock Must Die!" and "Spock, Messiah!" Early on in "Messiah" McCoy jokes "The last time Scotty operated the tranporter we got duplicate Spocks" and a footnote confirms that it immediately follows "Spock Must Die!" Similarly, "The Final Nexus" is a follow up to "Chain of Attack" which is in turn a followup to "The Abode of Life."

Ingrit Tomson, Security Chief aboard the "Enterprise" is another useful key in chronicling the novels. She first appeared in "Mindshadow" by J.M. Dillard and has survived all the way through "The Lost Years," the prequel to Star Trek-The Motion Picture, which officially marks the end of the 5-year mission. Her character was borrowed by other authors and has appeared frequently, but this may end due to new Paramount restrictions on Trek authors... The obvious point remains: she was the last Security Chief and novels featuring her should be grouped last. "The Lost Years" indicates that she served under Kirk aboard the "Enterprise" for 4 years, starting out not as the Chief but as a security guard or other junior position. Diane Duane complicates matters. In her novels set during the tail end of the 5-year mission, Nurse Chapel has left the "Enterprise" to get her doctorate. Her replacement is Lia Burke, introduced to us in "The Wounded Sky." Then why do the Ingrit Tomson novels, last in the series, sometimes feature Nurse Chapel aboard? Also featured in this novel is another security chief (Matlock)! Diane Duane's final novel, "Doctor's Orders," however, features BOTH Chief Tomson AND Lia Burke! In "The Lost Years," when the "Enterprise" enters dock, Nurse Chapel is mentioned as still being aboard and intent on getting her doctorate... One solution is to take the Duane novels as being in an alternate timeline--but that's not for me to decide. Another solution is that she left and came back.

Make no mistake, this order is not flawless--it depends on how deeply you want to dig. Consider "Spock Must Die!" the first Star Trek novel. Written by James Blish who did the novelizations of the classic episodes, he adds a brief footnote in a 3rd season novelized episode referring to "Spock Must Die!" Going by this, one would think that the novel takes place before or during the third season--but it's chock full of references to many other third season episodes After the key episode! It ends with the Organians depriving the Klingons of space travel. As a result, "Spock Must Die!" was placed at the top of the "5th Year List" of books, bunked down only by "The Galactic Whirlpool" which features Arex and M'Ress AND Chekov, apparently bridging the animated series with the novels.

Another example is the more recent novel "Faces Of Fire." The "Historian's Note" at the beginning (which has not always been reliable) states that the story begins on stardate 3998.6 "which would place it about halfway through the starship 'Enterprise's' original five-year mission." How can an old stardate which does not appear ANYWHERE in the actual story be used to calculate when in the 5-year mission the story takes place? Old stardates can vary from 1254.4 to 7403.6 in the original series and don't progress sequentially. Stardates aside, the novel either fits into Trek's 2nd season or after it (5th year, maybe). The ship's complement and rank all reflect the original 5-year mission, including the presence of Lt. Leslie and Dr. M'Benga. Pinpointing exactly WHEN is the real challenge... M'Benga's appearance would immediately have us place it after "Journey To Babel" (since after this episode, the doctor is transferred to the "Enterprise" as covered in the novels TOS #20 & #38). Chekov is also manning the navigation station on the bridge, again placing it as a 2nd season episode or later in the chronology (we know from ST II that he was aboard the "Enterprise" in the first season but not then as the ship's navigator). One comical segment of the novel has a character ask Chekov what he is going to do when he meets his first Klingon. Chekov met a Klingon crew in "Day of the Dove" (3rd season), again placing the novel in the 2nd season somewhere. One would think that the "new biomonitors" installed in sickbay would push the placement of this novel into the "5th year" but the Malurians immediate necessitate the placement before "The Changeling" even though Dr. M'Benga was not aboard then (at least not a normal member of the ship's complement). In "The Changeling" the entire Malurian race was "sterilized" by Nomad. I very much doubt there are two Malurian races, though it is a possibility (in the episode, Kirk mentions that Dr. Manway was stationed there. No mention of this doctor is made in the novel). In any case it appears that "The Changeling" is set sometime after "Faces Of Fire." We can now narrow down the placement of the novel between "The Changeling" and "Catspaw" (first episode of the 2nd season). Note that in the earliest episodes of this season Chekov was essentially an assistant science officer before serving at the helm alongside Sulu. We move the estimated placement further down... All that is left to go by now is the stardate: 3998.6. The closest approximation is somewhere near "The Doomsday Machine" (stardate 4202.9). Fortunately not all novels are this difficult.

More problems of this sort accumulate because some authors refuse to accept or view the animated episodes. In "Dreams of the Raven," Bob Wesley still commands the U.S.S. "Lexington" as in "The Ultimate Computer." But as we all know, he left Star Fleet to become the governor of the Pallas XIV system ("One of Our Planets is Missing")... "Yesterday's Son" makes no reference to "Yesteryear" yet clearly takes place afterwards as proven in the sequel "Time For Yesterday"... "Dreams of the Raven" gives us McCoy's current age as being 48--clearly a "5th year" novel, but a bit off... The novel "Bloodthirst": Kirk doesn't, at first, know what a vampire is. The novel "Death's Angel," on the other hand, tells us he was haunted by vampire myths since childhood... "Black Fire" ends with the "Enterprise" heading for some new repairs, Chekov promoted to Lt., and new ST-TMP uniforms recently issued. Clearly the last episode in the bunch, but it contradicts "The Lost Years" where the ST-TMP uniforms again first appear...

Many fans have criticized "Spock Must Die!" because it doesn't jibe very well with the later novels: it takes up 6 Months of time, gives us a massive Klingon-Federation War (during which Super Star Trek and all the related interactive computer combat grid games undoubtedly take place!), and ends with the Organians depriving the Klingons of spaceflight for 1,000 years! Following the rules explained above for sorting, the Blish Era also includes "Spock, Messiah!" (though not technically a Blish novel) and concludes with "The Business, As Usual, During Altercations" (completed by Blish's wife). A fascinating aspect of this is the climax of "The Business.." where the "Enterprise" is flung back in time (several months, minimum) before the Mudd dilithium crisis. Now assuming it was over half a year, I speculate the "Enterprise" would have tipped the Organians off regarding the Klingons' development of the planetary thought-shield used against them in the first novel. The Organians take appropriate action and no Klingon War develops. "Spock Must Die!" "Spock, Messiah!" and the first half of "The Business..." all simultaneously slip into a true alternate timeline: no Klingon War and no penalties imposed by the Organians. The "Enterprise" gains back a half years' time to finish her remaining year...

Here's the outline... 

     Animated Series Episodes introduces us to M'ress and Arex.
     "The Galactic Whirlpool" is the last of M'ress and Arex.
     
     Marshak/Culbreath Era
     Haldeman Era
     "Star Trek: The New Voyages 2" is the 2nd anthology novel ("Surprise!"
     is during Kirk's birthday: March?).
     Sky Era                         April??
     Eklund Era
     Goldin Era
     (Jack C.) Haldeman (II) Era
     --------------------New (Pocket Books) Novels----------------------------
     McIntrye Era                    May??
     Vardeman Era
     Correy Era
     Crispin Era
     Dvorkin Era                     June??
     Bear Era
     Snodgrass Era
     Kagan Era
     Yep Era                         July??
     Hambly Era
     Van Hise Era
     Ferguson Era
     Carey Era                       August??
     Carter Era
     Ford Era
     Paul Era
     Reeves-Stevens Era              September??
     Friedman Era
     Klass Era
     Kramer-Rolls Era                            
     Vornholt Era                    October??   
     Gilden Era
     Dillard Era (thru October 31st) <-- Unspecified novels fit in prior to this
                 introduces us to Security Chief Tomson.
     DeWeese Era
     Duane Era introduces us to Harb Tanzer and Lia Burke
     --------------------2265--------------------
     Larson Era (thru January 1st)
     Cooper Era
     "The Lost Years" completes the 5-year mission.
It appears that the "three D's" (Dillard, DeWeese, and Duane) are contributing to the tail end of the "Enterprise's" voyage, or approximately the last two months of the year 2264. "Pawns And Symbols" and "Black Fire" probably account for the remaining mission since it ends in early 2265. Keeping this in mind, most new "5th year" novels by new authors will logically be inserted immediately before the Dillard Era providing that they do not feature the later characters.

The Movies

Undisputably, the films Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier all occur one after another with very short time lapses between each. In fact, the above four films are set within one to two years time, no longer. Many months being the crews exile on Vulcan between ST III and ST IV, and the alteration of bridge and systems of NCC-1701-A between ST IV and ST V.

This leaves us with the gap of time between Star Trek-The Motion Picture and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. From the statements of Kirk and Khan we are led to believe that "Space Seed" happened 15 years ago. There is therefore a gap of 7-8 years between ST-TMP and ST II. Unfortunately this does not hold up under intense analysis. There is overwhelming data to suggest that "Space Seed" occurred further back than just 15 years.

1. In ST II, Kirk reads the date 2283 off of the Romulan ale bottle. McCoy replies that it needs to age. Assuming it is an Earth date and not a Romulan date (FASA fans prefer the latter) then the timeline is off by 8+ years, as it brings us to 2275. 2. In ST III, Admiral Morrow states that the "Enterprise" is 20 years old. What comes as a shock to the officers is Star Fleet's idea of decommissioning the "Enterprise." Although externally scarred from battling the "Reliant," the "Enterprise" was still quite intact and repairable. If there was only a 7-8 year gap between the time she was rebuilt and the time Star Fleet wants to decommission her, something is terribly wrong. Even more troubling is the 20 years statement, when it should be more like 55 years. The "Enterprise" is the pride of the Fleet, the finest starship and according to unanimous tech sources, the uprated "movie Enterprise" has a duration of 22 years. 3. In ST V, The Planet of Galactic Peace was established between the Klingons, Romulans, and Federation. If "Space Seed" (a 1st season episode) was really 15 years ago, then it occurred the same year as "Balance of Terror": the Federation's only contact with the Romulans in a century's time. According to Spock, in "Balance of Terror," no Human, Romulan, or ally had ever seen the face of the other. In other words, Nimbus III was settled 5 years BEFORE "Balance of Terror" which is impossible. It's also quite unlikely that the war-mongering Romulans would sit down with the Federation and agree to jointly settle a planet.

What is the solution to all these discontinuties? If Admiral Morrow was referring to the age of the UPRATED "Enterprise" of ST-TMP, then most of these problems are solved. 2267 + 20 = 2287. The date comes reasonably close to her maximum duration deadline (22 years). The date also surpasses the 2283 date on the ale bottle, well within the "need to age range" (4 year old ale). It's also a reasonable amount of time after "Balance of Terror" for the Romulans to reacquaint themselves with the U.F.P. Furthermore, the actors would be portraying characters much closer to their actual ages. Otherwise, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley would have been portraying characters 10+ years younger than themselves in ST V! The Federation Reference Series, Ships of the Fleet, and other Tech Fandom works accept this 20 year gap. The only glitch in this approach is the 15 year statements in ST II. Some were made by Khan: perhaps a Ceti Alphan year is longer than an Earth year? Either way he still clung to 200 years from 1996, "On Earth--200 years ago--I was a prince..." He was clearly confused about time passage. FASA fans and friends of Shane Johnson's books who dispute this and point to the service pins on the uniforms as a "proof" of a 7-8 year gap will be sad to know that the pins don't hold water under close analysis, since Kirk (/./././) should have at least one more 5 year pin and possibly 2 of them (Kirk was at the Academy 15 years before "Space Seed" according to "Shore Leave"). There are even MORE problems if anyone's compared the service pins on Spock (..////..), McCoy (/../../), Chekov (..///..) and other officers. These pins and bars probably represent commendations and citations earned by the officer, and not service length at all. Even in ST VI, the number of pins and their arrangements remain identical to those in ST II.

The Next Generation

How well does the timeline hold up when Next Generation dates and references are taken into account? Very well, but there are anomalies.

In "Encounter at Farpoint," Data states McCoy's age at being 137. This places the first season of The Next Generation in the year 2355. Towards the end of the first season, Data GIVES us the year as being 2364. Finally something undisputable to work with! There is a +9 year discrepancy. In the 3rd season, we are told by Data in "Evolution" that the last shipwide computer failure in a Star Fleet starship was 79 years ago. 2364 + 3 (3rd season/year) = 2366. 2366 - 79 = 2287! 2287, the year of our last 4 Trek movies, the year of NCC-1701-A's launch and it's flop in ST V due to a shipwide computer failure. There is little doubt why Data was given this line in "Evolution" and it's highly unlikely for it to be mere coincidence. Right on the nose. In "Cause And Effect" we were greeted to an ancient ship from the stated year 2278--the ST II uniforms and bridge design were employed, along with a modified "Avenger" class ship (called "Soyuz" class)--which neatly fits into the Chronology between ST-TMP and ST II. "Relics" hit it right on the nose again. The brief sickbay scene reveals Scotty's age as 147. A sixth season episode, "Relics" is set in 2369, subtracting 147 gives 2222 as Scott's year of birth--the exact year in the Chronology, as supplied by the original U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual. Furthermore, the estimated year of ST VI (late 2291) holds up quite well considering that Scotty was trapped in transporter stasis for 75 years, or since 2294. ST VI could not have been in 2295 or 2298, as some fans had calculated from the faulty movie novelization.

In "Sarek," Picard tells his bridge officers that Sarek is 202 years old. In "Journey to Babel" Sarek stated his age as being 102.437--about 100 years between the two episodes. Using my timeline, taking "Journey to Babel" as being in 2262 and "Sarek" as being 2366, there's a +4 year discrepancy. One possible means of explaining away the problem of age is time dilation: the slowing down of time aboard ships approaching light speed in real space. Although it's generally assumed that the time dilation problem's been licked in Star Trek via warp drive which seemingly cuts out all relativistic effects, sublight travel (shuttlecraft and such) should still be subject to the effects. Over a great period of time, this can add up. Consider the possibility that a being in Star Trek's time may have a biological age (the subjective age of the being's body) and a chronological age (the being's objective age computed from birthdate and present date). In "The Naked Now," Tasha Yar asks Data "Do you know how old I was when I was abandoned as a child?" Data replies with the question: "Chronological age?" which is strange, even for Commander Data! In the novel "Enterprise: The First Adventure," it is stated that Yeoman Rand had experienced this firsthand and used it to her advantage. The more recent novel, "Vendetta," also explains that time dilation occurs in warp space, or at least at excessively high warp factors. With all the time McCoy and Sarek spent in space, it would add up to a few years. We also know from "Clues" that biological aging can be de- termined accurately to the minute! And speaking of McCoy's age in the pilot episode. Larry Nemecek's ST:TNG Companion states, on page 24: "The Fontana-written McCoy scene does appear in this final draft script, although the 'old country doctor' is given the age of 147, not 137..." Who (or what) ever changed that one digit should be shot!

It's quite apparent where the Star Trek script writers got their dates from. They went by the original series dates (1966-1969) and added 300 years on. The 2364 of The Next Generation was probably chosen because it is 4 centuries after "The Cage," Trek's first produced episode (1964). When ST II was filmed, it WAS nearly 15 years after 1966's "Space Seed." By the time ST III came out, the "Enterprise" (the original model, that is!) was around 20 years old. The same figure of 20 years was used to place the time of The Planet of Galactic Peace. The ages of McCoy and Sarek were only roughly estimated by the writers based upon these factors, and in either case failed to take into account minute changes, such as "Sarek" being a third season episode. The year 2287 of ST V was appropriately chosen because it is nearly contemporary and nearly the year of ST V's release, minus three centuries.

Deep Space Nine

This TNG spinoff series runs concurrent with The Next Generation. Keeping the 6th season episodes of both series in their aired order and "splicing" them together makes an almost error-free ordering. The early episode "Dax" is set stardate 46910 which would ordinarily place it towards the end of the season. Not going by stardate order, I chose to ignore this one glitch. However, "Dramatis Personae" (to 46924) was aired after "The Forsaken" (46925) and I made an exception here. Otherwise, stardates were used to judge exactly where the TNG and DSN episodes chronologically mesh--sometimes resulting in multiple TNG episodes or DSN episodes in a row--although, due to syndication, the DSN or TNG episode may have been aired a week or so out of order. The second season has been more difficult to plot than the first due entirely to fewer stardates, but using a good deal of common sense I have done a reasonable job ordering the episodes.

FASA, Spaceflight Chronology, And Shane Johnson Additions!

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of FASA gaming materials, of the terribly flawed Spaceflight Chronology book or of Shane Johnson's many equally flawed publications. Yet I can't deny the fact that all three have had quite an impact on Star Trek fandom over the years, and continue to influence many fans, particularly those involved in role playing games. FASA's original starship miniatures have sold for quite a few years in virtually every SF-related magazine. Not that I care for the overpriced little toys, they're just quite prolific and have been heavily peddled. I've argued against not including this material for many years but now I have given in, and here are my reasons: 1. Outside of SFC/FASA, the 21st and 22nd Centuries are quite barren. FASA, and SFC in particular, offers up dozens of ship classes, historical events, and important milestones in the Trek Universe not touched upon by the novels or other sources. 2. Certain authors draw from SFC/FASA, although most if not all of the chronological data has been documented here. They still reference the books of Shane Johnson which are still in print and still back FASA/SFC. 3. SFC/FASA at times does answer a few unexplained mysteries of the Trek Universe, such as exactly what Colonel Green's War was about, the background behind the First Romulan War and the Four Years War, and the fate of the U.S.S. "Kongo." 4. It seems anti-IDIC not to include non-contradictory FASA/SFC info, from one perspective. While this is a Very unreliable source, with todays trend to slice Trek into "official" and "unofficial" categories, I think it's about time we scooped together these loose threads. With the animated series labelled "unofficial" I've had quite enough of this nonsense, and I don't care if Paramount, Pocket Books, or some unknown wiseguy made up the classification system on the spur of the moment. It is just plain WRONG to reduce the Trek Universe to what's strictly presented in the live action episodes and movies (and only Some movies, some say). 5. I thought it would be an interesting experiment to see what would come from the "new" material being thrown into place. I was not disap- pointed! As you will see, some dates fit almost too well when adjusted (the opposite is also true, yielding a conflict which I've tried to recon- cile using common sense or Vulcan logic--whichever worked first). 6. Everyone else uses the bloody stuff. I've seen at least 3 other time- lines and I've raved over how each FASA/SFC entry contradicts a Technical Fandom entry or how it's misdated or how it's so mish-mashed into the timeline that it simply doesn't hold water under close scrutiny. I figure that if it's to be integrated at all it should be integrated the Right way, with each entry studied for compatibility. Well, I've finally taken a shot at it, for better or for worse... I'll say again, these dates are HIGHLY questionable and any one of these new entries may be chucked out over night. This goes triple for the "Enterprise-B's" extrapolated launch date which I have a feeling will be made obsolete by the upcoming "Generations" movie. So if you come across something tagged SFC, FASA, URM, TWF, or MSGE be warned!

There is a lot of chronological material here, but much of it contradicts more substantial works and the timeline these works share is over half a century out of phase with the known Trek universe's history. Here's a sample comparing the dates of key events: 

     61 year differential for "The Battle": 2364 = 2303 (1st season: O. Manual)
     67 year differential for Data's Academy graduation: 2345 = 2278
     65 year differential for ST II, ST III: 2287 = 2222
 
     50 year differential for ST-TMP: 2267 = 2217 (F**A assumes 5 year gap!)
     53 year differential for end of 5-year mission: 2265 = 2212
     53 year differential for "Journey to Babel": 2262 = 2209
     53 year differential for "Errand of Mercy": 2261 = 2208 (1st season, late)
     51 year differential for Kirk's command of "Enterprise": 2258 = 2207
     52 year differential for The Axanar Peace Mission: 2250 = 2198
     52 year differential for "The Cage": 2248 = 2196
     52 year differential for The Four Years War: 2246 = 2194 (start & end)
     53 year differential for end of Romulan War: 2162 = 2109
     44 year differential for start of Romulan War: 2137 = 2093


     From this came some general rules:
     If FASA date after 2087 (but before 2217) then add 52 years (+/- 1 year).
     If FASA date after 2217 then add 50 or 65 years (If before TNG).
     If FASA date in TNG Era then add 61 years.
The general 52 year add-on equates nicely with most of the Chronology's dates. The Romulan War I've keyed the FASA timeline to, shifting dates up by an additional year. Technological development seems to match almost perfectly aside from the highly debatable transporter, and the multitronic computers 1 through 4 were successful in the FASA universe! The fact that PB-31 and earlier designs aren't illustrated in the Ship Recognition Manual for even the earliest of ships launched c. 2240 (corrected date) is logical since the PB-32 drive was developed in the 2240s which is the earliest drive type illustrated. To convert dates from FASA's TNG Officers Manual I simply added 61 years since 3/03 is repeatedly confirmed as being TNG's first season. This was repeated through the late 23rd Century until they intersected with the Movie Era dates.

At this point, to prevent any more confusion, I had better explain FASA's reference stardate system. Not to be confused with real stardates, these are based on the old fandom system of dating using the last two digits of the year followed by the month in two digits and the day after the decimal point. This is preceded by a digit, separated from the remainder of the stardate with a slash, representing the century. 1/1403.08, for instance, would be March 8th, 2114. Some more general dates lack the month and day digits (1/14 for 2114) or substitute zeros in the month field. Don't let it confuse you. For continuity with the source materials, I've kept the reference stardates unaltered and in brackets, right behind the corrected Earth date.

The differential jumps up to 65 years for Star Trek II and its chain of films because FASA assumes an exact 15 year gap between ST II and "Space Seed." And that's a FIVE year gap between ST-TMP and ST II because FASA claims another good 5 years passed between the conclusion of the classsic 5-year mission and hte first movie! Fitting the dates of a 5 year span into a 20 year span is difficult and I only ask that these dates be taken with a grain of salt... Or more precisely, the problem of cramming FASA dates 2213 through 2216 into the year 2266! So, taking the logical approach once again, for the year 2266: January: 2/1301-04 February: 2/1305-08 March: 2/1309-12 April: 2/1401-04 May: 2/1405-08 June: 2/1409-12 July: 2/1501-04 August: 2/1505-08 September: 2/1509-12 October: 2/1601-04 November: 2/1605-08 December: 2/1609-12

Post-ST II dates were another problem altogether, but a simpler solution was taken. I divided up the years and continued to log them after ST-TMP and before ST II. Simply: 2/17 = 2267 (Star Trek-The Motion Picture) 2/18 = 2268 2/19 = 2269 Jump! 2/20 = 2285 2/21 = 2286 2/22 = 2287 (Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan)

This actually works quite well without disrupting continuity for the most part. In 2/18 and 2/19 the maroon uniforms are issued according to Shane Johnson (his Uniform Recognition Manual says 2/18 while his Mr. Scott's Guide To The Enterprise' says 2/19!) but the crux being that they were first issued in the late 2260s not the 2280s which is too late ("Cause And Effect" proved that they were in use by 2278). Also, 2/19 is when the Klingons got their Bird of Prey scouts from the Romulans--logical enough since any later would be too late for the Movie Era novels, many of which feature these ships. The torpedo launcher upgrade mentioned in 'Ships of the Star Fleet' in 2285 is also confirmed in a 2/20 reference here. A 2/21 date confirms the "recent disappearance" of the Organians which we know to be a very recent event later spoken of in the ST VI novelization. The only exception to this is the entry concerning the Kargon Incident which details the destruction of the U.S.S. "Kongo" (which also happens to be one of the few ships whose NCCs actually match up with the FASA universe registries!). Her destruction is dated 2/1803--too early considering that the date con- verts to 2268, three years before her drydocking and refitting to the "Constitution (II)" specs. In this case, 2/18 was referenced back from the year 2/22, making it 2283. 

     The late 21st Century view of Trek history in the Spaceflight Chronology
     introduced another problem spawned by the lack of discrete data on
     warp drive development.  This era is very vague and undefined, resulting
     in many different timelines, with SFC making things worse.  Let's take
     a look at All the raw data and try to explain the inconsistancies...
     2040 - "Columbus" class fusion ships enter service - including the
     U.N.S.S. "Icarus" [SFC].
     2042 - Icarus departs for Centauri [SFC]
     2048 - Icarus makes contact with Centaurus VII inhabitants [SFC]
     2051 - Dr. Zefram Cochrane discovers the space warp at the Centauri
     Scientific Institute [Starfleet Dynamics, Line Officers Requirements].
     2052 - Warp Drive Principle transmission reaches Earth - Warp Drive
     Studies Program is initiated [SFC].
     2053 - Cochrane's Factor is discovered [Star Trek Maps}
     2054 - Icarus returns from Centauri [SFC]
 
     2055 - First Generation warp drive is developed and tested: WD-1
     prototype carries a chimp successfully [SFC & GN 2]
     2058 - First warp drive ship, "Bonaventure," undergoes testing [SFC].
     2059 - "Bonaventure" begins warp drive era with a voyage to Tau Ceti.
     Centauri mission which left Earth in 2054 arrives at Centauri [SFC].
     2060 - Warp drive ship U.N.S.S. "Powell" journies to Centauri [SFC].
     2061 - Cochrane's first warp engines are developed (CDP and all that
     techno-babble) and he relocates to the Centauri colonies, a 4-year
     voyage [TNG Tech Manual].
     2061 - The return of the "Powell" brings Cochrane to Earth [SFC].
     2064 - "Verne" class warp drive ships enter service ("Amity" is of this
     class) [SFC].
     2064 - Kzinti last attack & final defeat ["The Slaver Weapon" & EOM].
     2065 - U.N.S.S. "Amity" rescues a Vulcan ship/first contact [SFC &
     GN 2].  The "Bonaventure" encounters Axanar [FASA].
     2066 - The "Bonaventure" is lost on her 3rd mission to Sirius [SFC].
     2070 - Tau Ceti is explored & the Kaferians are contacted [Star Trek Maps].
Pretty messy, isn't it? And you wondered why I waited ignored SFC for 13 years... Now we try to clean it up. First off, we must assume that Zefram Cochrane's from Earth not Alpha Centauri. The majority of the data goes along with this, including the Tech Manual and Technical Fan- dom. I also assume that while the Centaurians are advanced humanoids transplanted from Earth (the Preservers? Apollo's people? The Sandarans?) they probably were technologically behind Earth and advanced through interstellar trade with Earth. Their home world is Centaurus VII, while Earth people colonized at least two inner planets in the Centauri system. I also give the SFC dates and data the least priority, exceptions being whenever the novels drew upon this data, predominately GN 2 ("Strangers From The Sky"). The key year in which warp drive was developed given in two reference works is 2051 when, presumably, the first breakthrough in this field occurred at the Alpha Centauri Scientific Institute. What's Cochrane doing there if he's not a native? Possibly he was one of the scientists aboard the "Icarus" (clearly a sublight vessel). With the dur- ation of the voyage being 6 years each way, he probably remained behind on Centaurus and, I speculate, made the breakthrough sharing scientific data with the Centaurian scientists. I conjecture that from 2051 through 2061 warp drive systems were tested but by all means the SFC dates are too early and most must be dismissed. Somewhere within this decade of experimentation, Cochrane returns to Earth by sublight ship and con- tinues his work. SFC says the warp drive ship "Powell" brought him back. Well, if it did, it had to be a sublight voyage longer than 4 years since warp drive had to come about after 2061. The TNG Technical Manual states that early warp engines (called CDP engines) "were almost immediately incorporated into existing spacecraft designs with surprising ease" and Scott's statement in "The Time Trap," that the "Bonaventure" was the first ship equipped with warp drive, seems to back this up. Other books (TBoT) tend to agree. Though the TNG manual says that "as early as 2061, Cochrane's team succeeded in producing a prototype field device of massive proportions" which propelled an unmanned vehicle across the light barrier. Spaceflight Chronology, FASA, and The Worlds of the Feder- ation all mention that a monkey was successfully accelerated past warp 1 in 2055, however. I left this entry in because at least 3 sources back it up and it is possible, I suppose, that the craft was a one-shot only deal not intended for further test flights or experimentation. Again, this era could use more substantional sources! Presumably many sublight ships were fitted with these CDP engines quickly enough--making quite a time-saver considering the timeline. The "Bonaventure" may have been one such ship already in service by the 2060s (SFC says she was "Cochrane" class which is peculiar for a lead ship of a class--perhaps a name change after receiv- ing the warp drive units?), and coincidentally she's "Constitution"-like. Yet the data is reasonable, and it's all we've got. The "Bonaventure" is illustrated in the EOM (both versions of the book) and recorded as a "Bonaventure" class galactic survey cruiser. It's not precisely the same as in the episode but far closer than SFC's 'slab ship' which can be ex- plained by refittings I suppose, quite logical for a protype ship and by "The Time Trap" she's two centuries old. Back to the timeline: shortly after 2061, Cochrane and his team relocate to the Centauri colonies, noted as taking 4 years via CDP drive--this is undoubtedly first generation warp drive by any other name. It's even possible that he voyaged back there aboard the "Bonaventure"--another speculation on my part. Why back to Centauri? Probably because that's where he started his work in the first place, and engines which employ antimatter are best experimented upon away from Earth. In 2064 SFC tells us that the "Verne" class warp ships enter service. Again I guess they used existing space frames from sub- light ships and needed only to build the warp (or CDP, if you like that silly abbreviation) engines. I don't dismiss this date because a year later is the historic contact with the Vulcans when the "Amity" (of the "Verne" class warp driven ships) occurs and is recorded in GN 2 as well as several other publications (TWF, FASA). To further substantiate warp ships by this time is the last Kzinti attack in 2064 which ends with the Treaty of Sirius when the Kzinti are repelled from Sol system and lose their empire. Earth HAD to have warp ships in service at this stage, and probably the first "Verne" ships saw a great deal of action. I'm not counting ships taken in battle from the Kzinti, which could have given Cochrane's team a technological boost. Sirius is 8.6 light years from Earth and said to be the first Terran colony (not counting Centaurus) in StarFleet Dynamics. SFC says the "Bonaventure" was lost in 2066 voyaging to this star (her third and final mission)--quite a distance from the Delta Triangle Region plotted in STM, but perhaps they encountered a wormhole? The "Bonaventure" is also credited with surveying the Tau Ceti system in 2061 after leaving Earth in 2059. This is a tad too far, too early, as Tau Ceti is 11.8 light years from Earth. Again I go along with Star Trek Maps' statement of Tau Ceti's first contact being circa 2070. FASA also credits the "Bonaventure" with making first contact with Axanar in 2065, again too early. Axanar is by far the most distant system and I believe had to be the ship's last stopoff point prior to the Delta Triangle. The EOM credits the S.S. "Cochrane" with making contact with Vulcan on stardate 1135.7 (presumably after 2065's Sol system contact and after 2087 when the stardate system was established--both are credited to GN 2). The question is, is this "Cochrane" the class ship to which the "Bonaventure" was refitted to? We'll never know. Do you care? This is a Star Trek Chronology not James' Fighting Starships. The only point which need be made is that the "Bonaventure"/"Cochrane" class starships were the first with warp drive, the first ships to make contact with other worlds, and were in service in the late 21st Century perhaps for 30 years or more. Now as for contradictory information from Spaceflight Chronology and FASA which requires some explaining or was simply omitted to save continuity...

1. "The Romulans" supplement from FASA gives a good history of the Romulan race--provided the dates before circa 1700 A.D. are ignored. FASA assumes the Romulan people were Preserver-seeded on Romulus and are not the product of an early Vulcan colonial interstellar exped- ition. This theory is superceded by all the novels and most recently by "Unification," especially its novelization. The early dates conflict with the settling of Romulus and go further back than the Vulcan migration as detailed in "Spock's World" and "The Romulan Way." These two novels also note the degeneration of Romulan technology and of how spaceflight and other sciences were lost. The "discovery" and development of spaceflight should therefore be interpreted as "rediscovery." If this data is to be taken as accurate, we must also assume that Remus was a sparcely colonized world and contact was long since severed and for- gotten by 1700 A.D. and later. The 1812 Remus landing is therefore not the first landing, but it is the first landing after the rediscovery of rocketry. Here's what's been omitted: 

       -29/
       The Preservers seed Vulcanoid peoples in the Romulus/Remus system,
       previously devoid of intelligent life.  Seven settlements are established
       at the sites of the modern city-states of Caranam, Portora, Kanassarum,
       Labasasz, Dinalla, Pulla'd, and Farrad.
       -27/
       D'Sivas is settled by Farrad on Romulus.  
       -25/
       On Romulus, the cities Labasasz and Portora make contact and battle
       over soft-metal deposits.  The results are inconclusive.
       -22/
       The Romulan people continue to disperse.  Ranassa is settled by
       Portora.  Timuraasz is settled by Dinalla.
       -21/
       Calanista and Manasan are settled by Caranam, on Romulus.

2. For the 1990 and 2003 entries on Kahless epetai-Riskadh it must be assumed that this is not the same Kahless The Unforgettable from "The Savage Curtain" and "Rightful Heir." This TNG episode clearly establishes that Kahless ruled the Klingons long before spaceflight was developed. I speculate that this Kahless is another Klingon with an identical name, possibly a descendant. Hey, it worked for Colonel Worf in ST VI and Lt. Worf in TNG, didn't it? The information on the perfection of warp drive in the 1990s fits considering that the Klingons got warp drive from the Karsid Empire in 1800. And warp drive systems are hardly developed over night, especially by a warrior race.

3. Spaceflight Chronology and FASA give different years for the commis- sioning of the Solar Fleet in the 21st Century. I made a logical choice between the two...

4. Here are the deleted SFC/FASA dates for Earth's development of warp drive which ended up as being too early. The specs for the "Bonaventure" also happen to apply to the ship illustrated in SFC which bears no re- lationship to the vessel seen in "The Time Trap." Cochrane disappears decades later, also:

0/5507-5909
The first experimental warp-driven ships are tested by Terran and Alpha Centaurian research teams. The United Nations Space Ship "Bonaventure", the first of the new ships, is commissioned. The First of the "Cochrane" class, the "Bonaventure", is well-armed with monochromatic high-intensity lasers, powered by the ship's fusion sublight engine [SFC, FASA].

2059
The "Bonaventure" begins Terra's Warp Drive Era with a voyage to the Tau Ceti star system twelve light-years away. These "Cochrane" class starships have a ship's complement of 45, warp celestial guidance, and fusion engines to generate the warp field effect. They are armed with 2 forward lasers, have warp 2.5 capacity, and employ 75:1 matter to antimatter fuel. The commander of the "Bonaventure" is Captain Hadrian Huckleby and her chief engineer is Ian Macgregor [SFC].

2060
The warp drive ship U.N.S.S. "Powell" journeys to Alpha Centauri and is hailed as a remarkable achievement [FASA].

2061
The "Powell" returns to Terra, bringing Zefram Cochrane. He is accorded all the pomp and pageantry any native Terran hero would receive [FASA]. Captain Hadrian Huckleby, commander of the U.N.S.S. "Bonaventure," brings the ship into the Tau Ceti system [SFC]. Trade between Earth and Alpha Centauri begins in earnest with first generation warp drive ships [SFC]. Zefram Cochrane disappears.

2065, 19 July [reference stardate 0/6507.19]
While on an exploratory mission, the U.N.S.S. "Bonaventure" discovers Axanar and its intelligent but non-spacefaring Humanoid race. The discovery of this race further substantiates Hodgkins' Law, now indisputably accepted as valid [FASA].

[reference stardate 0/6602]
The "Bonaventure" is unaccountably lost on its third mission.

5. A common gripe with Spaceflight Chronology which even FASA went on to correct was Vulcan's sun. It's 40 Eridani not Epsilon Eridani. Other erroneous stellar names were later ignored, except in cases where no common primary name was available. FASA's "The Federation" game supplement provided an abundance of information on stellar primaries-- but botched them up so badly that they weren't even consistent with themselves. One would think that Cochrane I was the first planet orbiting this star, but look again under Position in System, it's different! And then under the alternate stellar name!

6. The first Terran contact with the Andorians is dated 2075. There's no further data in other sources as to when first contact was achieved, with the exception of "Spock's World." The novel mentions that Earth had contacted the Andorians before the Vulcans. Since this is the only contradictory source, with no date whatsoever, I'm willing to dismiss it until something more substantial is produced, so I kept the FASA date.

7. The U.F.P.'s founding in 2087 is a key erroneous date in SFC/FASA. This marks the point where dates are shifted up approximately 52 years. All dates dates referenced from this point onwards will be approximated dates based upon this.

8. The approximated year is 2141 for the first deployment of space buoys "to improve navigation and security within Federation boundaries." Line Officers Requirements/Starfleet Dynamics gives 2150 but emphasizes "commercial and private interstellar craft." I'm assuming different beacons, perhaps the latter forming the space lane networks.

9. 2145 marks the year of the "Horizon" class entering service. Now here is a problem... Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints and other Tech Fandom publications have thoroughly covered the construction history of the "Horizon"/"Archon" class, placing them in the last decade of the 22nd Century. SFC assumes an almost exact 100 year differential for the loss of the "Horizon" (and later "Archon" though not credited as being of the same class). SFC credits these ships as being the first U.F.P.-sponsored class and stresses their wide production and importance. The more substan- tial "Horizon"/"Archon" is based on the pre-production drawings in "The Making of Star Trek" and bears no resemblance to SFC's "Horizon" ships! The SFC "Horizon" is a box-like affair with multiple laser banks, particle beam cannons, and torpedoes. Tech Fandom's "Horizon"/"Archon" ships are more warp dynamic, faster, and "Constitution"-like. Their only armaments, being non-militaristic cruisers, are two forward laser banks. Taking all this into consideration (and that the SFC "Horizon" class is decommissioned some 4 years prior to the launch of the Tech Fandom "Horizon" cruisers), I have assumed that these are two very different starship classes with the same name. I was tempted to name them "Horizon (I)" and "Horizon (II)" classes, but decided against it since there has been too many liberties taken in other Trek timelines. Thus, the SFC dates given for the loss of the "Horizon" and "Archon" were ignored in favor of the more popular HCE and SotF dates.

10. There's some confusion as to When the Romulan War began. SFC makes it clear that the Romulans began their assault and were mistaken for space pirates for many years. This explains the discrepancies, with "The Romulan Way" dating the start of the Romulan attacks as far back as 25 years. The actual war, with ships from both fleets mobilized, didn't begin until the late 2150s/early 2160s.

11. One rare exception to the dating shift scheme is the opening of the Arcturus Test Range. It would have been in the early 2200s but the "Durance" class cargo/tug includes several records of ships of this class being destroyed in this region in the mid-2160s. This ship class would later be acknowledged in more sophisticated Tech Fandom works such as the Size Comparison Chart II, so the ship histories Do fit this Chron- ology and the SFC date is therefore Correct for a change.

12. The TNG Technical Manual describes the development of modern photon torpedoes, dating back to the early 23rd Century. SFC, on the other hand, lists them among the armaments of many a Star Fleet ship in the 22nd Century alongside fusion torpedoes. I speculate that these were the simplest of antimatter torpedoes, perhaps erroneously referred to as photon torpedoes. It certainly doesn't take much technology to develop a magnetic bottle capable of holding antimatter, not when they've got warp driven starships. A good analogy is the warp factor ratings ap- plied to ships decades before the Quantum II warp drive system introduced in 2161 (Star Trek Maps) when warp factors were first invented. Speaking of warp drives, I haven't altered the SFC Generations of warp drive even though they conflict with Technical Fandom's. Simply because 2nd Generat- ion warp drive was incorporated into ships a few years before the estab- lished date does not imply that they were of the same superior design and capabilities.

13. The establishment of Memory Alpha was in the 23rd Century, not the 22nd according to Star Trek Maps. I deleted all references to it from SFC therefore, although I did acknowledge that the "Horizon (I)" was placed there.

14. The "Horizon" leads us to the problem of subspace radio, SFC's "Declaration" class, and the Prime Directive. The "Horizon" didn't have subspace radio in "A Piece of the Action" yet subspace radio was used to negotiate the original Romulan-U.F.P. Treaty. The "Horizon" is from the 2190s and the War ended in the early 2160s. One could interpret this as meaning that early subspace radio had been developed by the 2160s and it wasn't until after the 2190s that so sophisticated a communications system could be miniaturized and installed aboard starships. It sounds logical, so I dropped this SFC entry:

2174 [reference stardate 1/22]
Subspace Radio is introduced in the U.F.P. This breakthrough has an immediate and far-reaching impact on galactic security, trade and travel with its warp 15 transmission speed--a breakthrough in transtator physics [SFC].

Shortly after this, the "Declaration" class starliners enter service, the first ships with subspace radio. Problem: long before the 2190s and our "Horizon." I simply acknowledged that this class would be the first to have subspace radio installed, guessing that it would be decades later on down the road. The "Declaration" class would be in service till 2217 when the "Constitution" class would be launched. What is most unsettling about the "Declaration" class is its history. SFC says one such ship of this class was named the "Enterprise." This tidbit comes from the information alcove painting of an ambiguous space vessel "Enterprise" in ST-TMP. Un- fortunately, like the "Bonaventure," she doesn't look quite the same as the source. But unlike the "Bonaventure," she's not a decade early, but is over a century Late. The Making of ST-TMP credits her as being the first ship to Alpha Centauri in the early 21st Century. Star Trek Maps supplies the date as being 2039 and a more accurate line drawing rendering of this early interstellar vessel. Even The Worlds of the Federation acknowledges her and this date. Since we know there isn't another "Enterprise" this SFC ship has been ignored. If there is any doubt over this, study her design. The wheel-shaped hub was constructed to provide centrifugal spin gravity for the crew's comfort. True artificial gravity came about, pre- sumably, when warp drive was developed. Of course, there is the flying belt found in the stasis box ("The Slaver Weapon") and the case of the S.S. "Botany Bay" having gravity (or were they walking with magnatomic adhesion soles?) but in any case, she's a primitive ship. The judge in the Post Atomic Horror court of 2079 glided in on an antigrav chair in "Encounter At Farpoint." Data did say the court was an exact duplicate so we should as- sume that the chair wasn't one of Q's extra touches. As with subspace radio, the "Horizon" also lacked the Prime Directive. General Order Number One went into affect after her contact with Sigma Iotia II (or at the very least, after she left port). So the following First Violation of the Prime Directive entries were dropped, since they're clearly undefined as to when G.O. #1 went into effect. From "Prime Directive" we get the date of the first publication of the Richter Scale of Culture around 2203, which would later be used to determine when G.O. #1 would apply to certain critical civilizations. Yet we still have no idea of when it was instituted, though General Order 7 was made law apparently right after "The Cage" around 2248.

2180 [reference stardate 1/2803]
Captain James Gunther Smithson enters orbit around Vega Proxima where two rival power blocs are about to start a nuclear world war. Smithson intervenes by directing his ship's lasers to intercept and neutralize a missile. He is relieved of command [SFC, FASA].

2182 [reference stardate 1/30]
Captain James Smithson is dishonorably discharged from Star Fleet in the first violation of the Prime Directive. He is court martialed at Starbase 11, Star Fleet Strategic Space Station, commanded by Commodore Thaddeau Stoner, for preventing a world war [SFC].
In the "Mirror" universe: The first major execution of the Prime Instigation Directive occurs when Captain James Smithson intervenes to promote a nuclear conflict on Vega Proxima [TBoT #14].

15. In view of how starbases seem to change, are redesignated, and tend to be destroyed, I've kept the bizarre history of Starbase 12 intact. Never before has there been a starbase which is active, is incomplete a couple decades later, is active over half a century later, then is said to be active a few years after that. You can interpret this any way you'd like. I wash my hands of it.

16. The list of Federation Presidents is nearly impossible to integrate without chucking some names out or leaving incredible gaps. This is again because FASA prefers to Invent than Research. Noted U.F.P. presidents not in their history include the one who christened the Enterprise (Star Trek Log 7) and the negotiator who signed the Romulan Peace Treaty (Star Fleet Technical Manual)--though in this second case I've left his name in. Perhaps Governor of the Federation Council and Council President are two different positions?

17. General Orders 1 through 24 listed in FASA's Federation booklet have not been included since they tend to conflict with the General Orders presented in the live action and animated series, dates and all. I recommend the General Orders given in the original U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual over these. However, General Orders 25 and beyond are otherwise undefined outside of FASA and have therefore been included. These are from FASA's TNG Officers Manual.

18. Some of the chronological data in "The Final Reflection" contradicts SFC/FASA. Because this novel is such a milestone in Klingon history, I've given its dates priority. So therefore the first Klingon contact was shifted to 2207 and not the year 2203 given in SFC/FASA.

19. FASA's Klingon-whatever fusion race references are not to be found here. Whenever possible, I'm tried to keep what I could of the entries intact. They are different Klingon races/nationalities and I've left it at that.

20. Poor Richard Daystrom really got screwed by SFC/FASA. He's given the wrong date of birth (even Okuda's Chronology didn't botch this!) and resultingly all later dates tied into his creative genius fall apart. These include his breakthrough at age 10 in 2222, his Nobel Prize for Duo- tronics in 2237, the development of the universal translator from it a year later in 2238, and eventually the M-1. Fortunately there's a logical pat- tern here and the dates only lag by 14 years. 14 years added on fixes them.

21. The entry on the invention of the transporter from FASA and SFC I decided to leave intact because it's so ambiguous and because it is packed with info. Perhaps until this point in history it had always been the property of Star Fleet and not the Federation? Was the technology lost and rediscovered? You decide.

22. Other wacko dates, dates contradicted by Treknical sources like Star Trek Maps, were not included. These include the oddball U.F.P. member already recorded, the establishment of Wrigley's Pleasure Planet, and a couple of colonizations from FASA. FASA also gave two conflicting dates for the Orion slave trade ban. I selected the more popular of the two.

23. FASA's dating of the "Constitution" class' launch I've dismissed for reasons already stated. FASA's whole list of vessels in this class are erroneous (at least as far as mainstream Technical Fandom goes), notably their NCCs. There are uncountable numbers of other FASA ship anomalies for their own, original ships even. In their universe, it's not uncommon for Star Fleet to build a hundred ships or more of each class, as opposed to a dozen or so in Technical Fandom's universe. I'm warning you right now. You'll also note that I left out listing the number of phaser emplacements for most FASA ships. The reason for this is that FASA can't count their own phasers per ship! A typical movie era ship has 12 phaser emplacements on her primary hull (3 pairs topside, 3 pairs bottomside). FASA scales their ships down, for gaming simplicity, giving only a couple banks per ship--even though you can easily count these "missing" banks on their own ship illustrations! This gets rather confusing and rather than wasting time extrapolating how many phasers are actually present on each ship (no easy task considering that not all views are presented for each and the lower hull need not always mirror the upper hull) I simply left out listing the ships' ordnance in some cases. Ships which I have intention- ally igonored are the "Constitution," "Enterprise," and "Reliant" classes which have all been thoroughly (and need I say more accurately?) covered here by non-gaming technical references. I've also steered away from using their Class system which seems to be confused with the traditional Model classification system (to FASA, "Constitution" and "Enterprise" class heavy cruisers are Class XI ships rather than Class I ships of the line). I'm also somewhat doubtful over their ships Complement and Emergency Speed records. Crew and Passengers are split, which is fine for the "Constitution" class (Crew: 430, Passengers: 60 or so they say) but not for the "Enterprise" class (Crew: 416, Passengers: 60). For Ship's (Total) Complement should the two be summed? I've just noted the Crew as listed in the Ship Recognition Manual, nothing more in each case. The same source states the "Enterprise" class has a cruising velocity of warp 8 and an emergency speed of warp 10--though almost all other sources give her a maximum speed of warp 12, with warp 10 being classified as Flank Speed. In the Chronology I have simply recorded the emergency speed for the warp capacity in each case. This thing's a Chronology anyway, you can analyze each source independently for more detailed information--if you consider them "legitimate" to begin with. It's interesting to see how the Mk I, Mk II, and Mk III "Constitution Class XI Cruiser" ships' service dates almost match up to the "Constitution," "Bonhomme Richard," and "Achernar" classes when altered... The "Enterprise" class similarly in FASA has three Mark subclasses which shouldn't be compared. Again, this information hasn't be incorporated for continuity's sake, as there's quite enough confusion without incorporating the different Model number systems.

24. I've done my best to hop around using FASA's designations for technical hardware models. FWG-1 (Federation Warp drive G, lookup 1 in the chart), FIC-2 (Federation Impulse drive C, lookup 2 in the chart), FSC (Federation deflector Shield C), KD-2 (Klingon Disruptor type 2) and so on. Doesn't look very realistic does it? Again because it's for role playing game purposes.

25. Shane Johnson's contributions fit right into the FASA universe, as it's his primary source of information. Since I included FASA I had to include some of his non-conflicting info (which isn't much!). He calls a devistating, yet short-lived, war between the U.F.P. and the Klingons shortly before any sort of peaceful negotiations the Swift War in his Worlds of the Federation (a pity he made up the coordinates for systems not pre-plotted in Star Trek Maps and are terribly erroneous). I am assuming that this was the war which the "T'Ong" was prepared for in "The Emissary." Johnson is known to contradict even his own pub- lications. The dates for the approval and issuing of the ST II uniforms are shifted by a year in his Star Fleet Uniform Recognition Manual and his Mister Scott's Guide to the "Enterprise" book. I went with the later dates in the latter source since the ST-TMP uniforms have an incredibly short service life, yet we know the ST II uniforms were in use by the late 2270s ("Cause And Effect"). The Recognition Manual's issue dates for the classic uniforms were dismissed and only the approval dates accepted (after the usual 50+ year shift was applied, of course) because they're a few months too early going by the more substantial and accurate Federation Reference Series dates (which is by far a better guide to pre- ST II uniforms).

26. The TNG Officers Manual gives some radically different histories and data for the "Enterprises" (-B and -C) and can't even give the correct class for each ship. All has been ignored, just as the specs for older, established ships from FASA were ignored. These include the wide range of invented names for the "Excelsior" class, ranked as Battlecruisers. Later ships in FASA's universe launched in the TNG era I have included, though not necessarily their NCCs. My favorite is the U.S.S. "Peter Preston" (NCC-6027) "Decker" class transwarp destroyer. If FASA had survived a few more years, there might've even been a U.S.S. "Spot." The "Sagan" class science ships (clearly supposed to represent the "Oberth" class) I decided to include on the basis that they are offshoots of the "Oberth" class, though I've omitted FASA's "Tsiolkovsky" (NCC-20001) entry. FASA's "Ambassador" class heavy cruisers differ drastically from the "Abassador" class we are accustomed to. They are not the same class. FASA's lead ship of this class is the "Ambassador Hardin" so I've therefore referred to them as the "Ambassador Hardin" class rather than just "Ambassador" class. The "Paine" class frigates are another problem. An Okudagram appearing in TNG Magazine provides the NCC of the U.S.S. "Thomas Paine" appearing in "Conspiracy" and also notes it as a "New Orleans" class frigate. The number and nominal class don't match, I've nevertheless included all ships and you can interpret them any way you wish. An upgrade to a new class and change of registry or another ship entirely? 27. The Best of Trek #14 published a Mirror Universe Chronology directly based upon the Spaceflight Chronology, using the same dates. Intrigued by it, I also incorporated it using the same rules above. It's a bit odd how both universes pretty much feature the same events and characters over the period of three centuries, but that's the Mirror Universe for you. Diane Duane's new novel "Dark Mirror" seems to support this timeline. However, I was forced to eliminate some entries which were inconsistent with the episode "Mirror, Mirror" itself! These include the rise of Captain Pike to Emperor-- Kirk's service record stated that Kirk assassinated the former captain and thereby attained command of the "Enterprise." A few entries go on about how Emperor Pike bred the flying para- sites of "Operation: Annihilate!" and continued on ruling the U.F.P. past the time of the five-year mission. These were obviously dropped. Another oddity is Emperor Joaquin's assassination in 2177 (originally 2125). Assuming he was born in the 1990s (not of selective breeding) he'd be over 135 years old! That's over 187 with the 52 year shift! Of course, these are Eugenics supermen with increased life-spans and I suppose being the emperor he had the best of medical care at his disposal... And through organ transplants, cybernetics, and life- extension drugs, who-knows-what he had evolved into by the time he got what was coming to him... Might've looked like Davros or Vader! With the large differences in years I also assume that "Colonel" Patrick Green was in actuality the father of the "real" Colonel Green who never was born and/or never came to power in the "Mirror" universe. Another interesting addition is that a Colonel Green is mentioned as having aided Khan in his invasion of Australia in the recent novel "Debtors Planet." This cannot have been later than 1996 so I am again assuming that this is another Colonel Green, again probably the father of the Colonel Green of the 2030s campaign.

28. FASA's early history of the Klingons seems to hold up quite well, however there are discontinuities which can't be explained. Line Officers Requirements Supplement, for example, states that the Klingons FTL drive system was developed c. 1800--a century before the development of spaceflight according to the FASA timeline. We know nothing about this early warp drive development and since LOR tends to be a more reliable source I left it intact in the Chronology. Possibly the Karsids gave the technology to the Klingons c. 1800? Possibly the technology was lost in battle for a century? We don't know. History is erratic at times. To add to the confusion is the novel "Mindshadow" which introduces us to a Klingonoid character from a world settled by Klingons c. 1264 A.D. With the different names attributed to the homeworld (Kazh, Klinzhai, Kronos) it's possible that we're dealing with one or more worlds seeded by the Preservers at different technological levels. This could even account for the multiple Klingon races...

Star Fleet Battles Additions

Basically the same rules for integrating-in FASA/SFC data were followed for Star Fleet Battles, another role playing gaming universe but not nearly as infamous as FASA. In the case of SFB I had far fewer sources to go by, and astonishingly the timeline was much more uneven but I tried my best to match the SFB timeline up with that of the Chronology. Be warned that these dates are even more speculative than FASA/SFC dates. As with FASA/SFC, most of this info can't be confirmed by any other sources, particularly the vast array of small wars and conflicts (which alone I think justifies the inclusion of SFB). So you can take them or you can leave them. Better to have too much data at your disposal than too little, even if the data is questionable. Perhaps the alternate universe cop-out can apply to some of these entries? Or the even better excuse of the data tapes being "badly garbled" from the "Enterprise's" data dump back in 1969 which SFB claims to be based upon (from the Commanders Edition rulebook).

Unlike FASA, SFB doee not use "reference stardates" but a different system where Year 1 represents the first contact between Humans and other interstellar neighbors, Year 4 representing the formation of the U.F.P. etc. Even here note how the dates are off. I therefore had to select specific years to use as reference, and slot what data didn't conflict into the Chronology. So don't lynch me if some events don't seem to progress normally going by this Y timeline. As with FASA, I've kept the original date in brackets. 

     Here are my references...                     Differential
     Y 4 = 2127: U.F.P. founded                   2123* low date
     Y 46 = 2162: First (Federation-)Romulan War ends    2116
     Y 71 = 2183: (United) Star Fleet formed             2112
     Y 83 = 2236: D-7 Klingon battlecruiser introduced  *2153*  D-6 in Y 65
     Y 83 = 2189: ("Caracal" class) command cruisers     2106
     Y 110 = 2221: First U.F.P.-Klingon war              2111
     Y 156 = 2261: Organian Peace Treaty imposed         2105
     Y 159 = 2263: "Enterprise Incident" or thereabouts  2104
     Y 168 = 2278: ("Ascension" class) dreadnoughts      2110
     Y 171 = 2281: Organians 'disappear'                 2110
     --So from 2104 to 2153 is added to these Y-ears, but generally
     2104-2116 which is only a 12 year differential, and an average of
     2110 is added onto these years to get Chronology dates, in theory...
Here are notes on the Star Fleet Battles' entries: 1. First contact between Humans and their neighbors in Year 1 doesn't hold up if the U.F.P. was founded in Year 4. Contact with extraterrest- rials occurred in the 21st Century not the 22nd: Vulcans, Tellarites, And- orians, Alpha Centaurians, Vegans, and the Kzinti stuck their head in 4 times. It doesn't matter how you view it, Y 1 and Y 4 don't hold water.

2. SFB states that Y 32 (or circa 2140) began the era of the U.F.P.'s sublight light cruisers. This is wrong since warp drive was developed almost a century earlier and the Federation has had warp cruisers for decades. Also omitted is the U.F.P.'s Cruiser design, introduced in Y 45, or about 2161. SFB's "Horizon" class, among others, preceded this date by quite a few years.

3. Within a decade after the supposed development of sublight cruisers by the Federation, the first Federation-Romulan War is fought, according to SFB, from Y 40-46. SFB says that both sides lacked warp drive and the war was fought with sublight vessels. This is one of the rare sources to disregard 21st Century warp drive development. These entries on the warp drive lag were left out of the Chronology. SFB is fixed on most races developing faster than light propulsion from Y 62-67 with the exception of the Romulans. In fact, it isn't until circa 2174 that the Federation launches the first warp-powered cruiser going by SFB!

4. In Y 63 the Kzinti are said to have developed warp power. Yet another entry bites the dust since this would be around 2175 A.D. and we know that over a century earlier they fought 4 wars with Earth, and they didn't get there aboard sublight vessels. I am ignoring the possibility that the felinoids had been using another form of faster-than-light propulsion up until now (Niven would claim they used a gravity-polarizer or gravity- planer drive). This is also the era, SFB claims, that the Federation began to convert 30 old-style sublight cruisers to warp power--again, about a century late.

5. More discrepancies with late 2170s ship launches. More like oddities. SFB claims this is when the first Klingon D-6 cruisers entered service. That seems to be several decades early, but then again we know very little about the D-6 battecruisers. The Federation puts to space her first destroyers, heavy cruisers, and other ships. This is contradicted by the "Djartanna" class destroyer and other new-build vessels, launched long before the 2170s.

6. The "United Star Fleet" founded in the early 2180s is intriguing. In fact, it could very well be the key to the whole Star Fleet founding mystery. The 2183 date given in Line Officers Requirements and Star- fleet Dynamics jibes rather well, but what exactly is a UNITED Star Fleet? SFB claims that until now member planets of the U.F.P. had "national" fleets. Could it be that member worlds, or at least significant member worlds, had their own mini Star Fleets for defense until now? It would explain the earlier references to Star Fleet, as well as the possible Roman numeral 2161 date on the San Francisco Star Fleet Academy logo in "The First Duty"--the founding of the Earth/Sol system Star Fleet and/or Star Fleet Academy. The earlier FASA reference to an Academy opening on Alpha Centauri might have been the Centaurian Academy, and not this United Star Fleet, later shorted to just Star Fleet.

7. Around 2184 a cargo drone enters service in the U.F.P. I am assuming this is not the same as the "Durance" class tug introduced much earlier.

8. In the Y 70s I had to, unfortunately, crunch some together into the same years. This is the best I could do without throwing continuity off. These aren't like classic stardates, after all.

9. 2189 matches up beautifully with Y 83: the year Star Fleet's command cruiser enters service--the "Caracal" class (did these guys do their homework or is this just blind luck?). Yet the possible discrepancy here is with the Klingon D-7s entering service--something like half a century early? Well, judging by the way FASA uses the D-7 classification so loosely, we'll just chalk it up as being the earliest prototypes of this warship class.

10. Around 2193, we have the first Federation-Kzinti War. No, this isn't a discrepancy since the U.F.P.'s now formed so there's no confusion here with the four Earth battles in the 21st Century. However, Sulu did say in "The Slaver Weapon" that the last Kzinti war was two centuries ago. Trying his best to insult Chuft-Captain or perhaps this was a minor skirmish hardly deserving the title? To quote from SFB: "The numbering of wars is rather arbitrary, but generally in keeping with Federation historical texts. It should be pointed out, however, that some 'incidents' included more fighting and destruction than some 'wars.' Several wars include periods of relative calm that cause some historians to list these as separate wars." Something like this crops up again around 2244.

11. Y 110-111 marks the first Federation-Klingon War. It's obviously very brief and clearly isn't the Four Years War of decades later. This would seem to be about the time of the first hostilities between the two powers mentioned in ST VI.

12. SFB claims that the Second Federation-Romulan War began in Y 154 and lasted a year, yet in Y 156 we have "Errand of Mercy." Beats me what's happening since a year or less prior to this episode should have been "Balance of Terror" which was The first Romulan engagement in a century's time. Another non-inclusive entry.

13. In 2262 a couple entries regarding the Romulan-Klingon alliance were crunched together. Again, there's no way out of this without disrupting the continuity of SFB.

14. This First General War is described as a very destructive war which involves almost all races and covers most of the known regions of the galaxy, and spans Y 168-185. Very significant, but exactly where does it fit into the timeline? I plot it out to begin around 2278, obviously starting off very gradually, pulling in various different races, probably on the outskirts of U.F.P. space. It may justify the militaristic turn of Star Fleet during the post-ST-TMP movie era. It might also be indirectly responsible for the stirring up of the little empires, such as the Kzinti, and certainly the large numbers of warships (frigates come to mind!) constructed by Star Fleet during these two decades.

15. The withdrawal/disappearance of the Organians is rather ambiguous. Ships of the Star Fleet Volume 2, right in the Preface, mentions "the apparent withdrawal of the Organians in the early 2280s." Applying the dating system in use here for matching SFB dates to the Chronology, Y 171 comes out to be 2281. Beautiful, ain't it? But then there's the FASA entry dated mid-2286, Morrow's declaration about the Organians no longer enforcing the Organian Peace Treaty. Maybe they left and came back and then left again? Well, it's two against one with the earlier date being favored. Perhaps the Klingons declared war in 2281 and spent 5 years building up their military? Or maybe we should tackle the definition of the terms "withdrawal" and "no longer enforcing" --it's rather ambiguous. Could Star Fleet have been keeping this little known fact a secret for 5 years and, finally, in 2285 release the sad news to the general public? You tell me...

16. The Grand Alliance, outside of the gaming universe, is unheard of just like the General War. In Y 174 (2284), this Grand Alliance is first brought to our attention by SFB. Yet years later it will be acknowledged by, believe it or not, the one source which seems to steer clear of other separate universes: FASA! The TNG Officers Manual put out by FASA tries to imply that the U.F.P., as we know it, no longer exists in the 24th Century, but is one of the allied members of the Grand Alliance. The book calls the TNG seal the "Great Seal of the Federation Grand Alliance" with the 3 blazing stars symbolizing the three principle worlds involved in its formation: Terra, Klinzhai, and Vulcan. But by any other name it's the seal of the United Federation of Planets, period! The Klingons have their own Imperial trefoil emblem and the Vulcans are rather proud to flaunt their IDIC logo. We saw this new U.F.P. insignia for the first time (chronologically) in ST VI in the president's office, before the start of the Klingon-U.F.P. alliance, so obviously one blazing star can't stand for Klinzhai. SFB described the Grand Alliance first in 2284 and it's my belief that the seal (at least as originally proposed) represented the Gorn-Federation-Kzinti alliance of fleets and was still in use by the time of ST VI. It probably became accepted U.F.P.-wide as the Federation seal and for no bloody good reason stuck with the U.F.P. for a century. An early variation of this seal also appears in Jackill's Reference Manual II for the Star Fleet Space Station division emblem (this second volume cannot be later than 2285). It's also possible that the three blazing stars represent the three cornerstones of U.F.P. space: Rigel, Deneb, and Antares during the territorial redefinition in the 22nd Century.

Popular Misconceptions

I know that many of you, after reading the launch dates of the "Enterprise" and the other "Constitution" class heavy cruisers, are shocked by them being some 40 years before Star Trek's first year. One of the most damaging misconceptions introduced by the Spaceflight Chronology book was that the "Enterprise" and her sisters had only been a couple decades old at the time. FASA, of course, spread this around and many authors accepted it without question. According to The Making of Star Trek: "The 'Enterprise' ['Constitution'] class starships have been in existence for about 40 years..." Alan Dean Foster, in his novelization of "The Counter-Clock Incident," additionally has the retiring first captain of the "Enterprise" (Robert April) say, repeatedly, that he first took command of her four decades ago. He is 75 years old in this animated episode and if he were a few years older than the soon-to-be youngest starship commander at the time of his promotion to "Enterprise" captain then the 40 year figure fits very well. Pre-production notes in The Making of Star Trek gives April's age during his "Enterprise" command as mid-30s. Although it's obvious his character evolved into James Kirk, nothing contradicts April's age. Franz Joseph's classic Star Fleet Technical Manual gives a listing of all 14 original "Constitution" class ships, among them is the "Valiant" (NCC-1709) listed as 'lost in the line of duty.' In "A Taste of Armageddon," the "Valiant" was lost on a mission to Eminiar VII "50 years ago," according to Spock. A bit on the high side, but nevertheless lost decades back. There was another "Valiant" lost 200 years earlier mentioned in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," the S.S. "Valiant," one of the first Earth starships. We never hear of the "Constitution" class "Valiant" ever again, unlike the other 13 ships which surface in novels and fan fiction. Tech Fandom took FJ's Tech Manual and blueprints a step further and published exact launch and commissioning dates for all vessels: they were launched almost exactly 40 years before the first year of Star Trek. All other Tech Fandom sources invariably agree: Ships of the Fleet, Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints, Federation Reference Series, Starfleet Handbook and many more. Those who reject this explanation that starships could remain in service for so many decades should take into account how these ships were uprated to accomodate the new technology available--as well as looking over "The Battle," "Peak Performance," and the novel "Eyes of the Beholders" which goes to show that 80-100 year old ships are still spaceworthy. After 80 years, the "Excelsior" class ships also seem pretty active in The Next Generation. One of the original "Constitution" class ships makes an appearance in the Next Generation novel "The Captain's Honor"--revamped and renamed, and the hull of an "Enterprise" (or "Tikopai") class heavy cruiser is seen among the wreckage in "The Best of Both Worlds Part II." The TNG novel "Reunion" also features the "Constitution" class starship "Lexington" in chapter 2.

Just as Spaceflight Chronology diverged from the age of the "Enterprise," so it does for the age of the transporter. SFC and FASA have both claimed that the transporter is a relatively recent 23rd Century invention--both consistently ignore the animated series, too. The Terra 10 Earth colony ship launched roughly two centuries before the 5-year mission, in "The Terratin Incident," had transporters. Transporter technology may have been lost or banned after the 21st Century, one might speculate. While there's nothing else to either prove or disprove when the transporter was invented, it did play a key role in the episode, and if it weren't for the Terratins having transporters, the episode would have came to a sinister end! The more recent TNG episode "Realm of Fear" gives us the date of 2209 for the first diagnosis of Transporter Psychosis. This predates "The Final Reflection" novel set around 2230 and introduces us to the Federation's development of transporter technology. Again, FASA/SFC is unreliable...

The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual

This latest source is packed with information on TNG. While there is no conflict with 24th Century dates, there are some glitches in 23rd Century dates. These are to be found on page 3 of the manual. It begins by saying that in 2277 the "Enterprise emblem" was adopted in place of individual insignia for each starship... There's Hot debate here: Did each and every starship in Star Fleet have an individual uniform insignia? FASA and the old Concordance went along with this, Tech Fandom did not. Why not? In "Court Martial" Kirk meets several Academy buddies on Starbase 11. They are all wearing the familiar arrowhead uniform insignias. In "The Tholian Web" if careful observation is made of one of the deceased officers in sickbay aboard the "Defiant" the same insignia can be seen on his uniform. In "The Eye of the Beholder" all members of the spacecraft "Ariel" are wearing the arrowhead uniform insignia (despite the Concordance's and Shane Johnson's attempt to distort it). The old Star Fleet Technical Manual describes the arrowhead as the division insignia of Star Fleet Armed Forces and makes no distinction between ships, likewise the Medical Manual, and other pre-ST-TMP Tech Fandom books and prints. The original U.S.S. "Enterprise" Officers Manual and the Federation Reference Series describe it as a function of both placement and rank. Commodores wore a stylish "I"-shaped insignia ("The Doomsday Machine"), Fleet Commodores--those assigned to Star Fleet/Starbase shore facilities--wore star-shaped insignia ("Trouble With Tribbles," "Court Martial" etc.), Fleet Captains wore rectangular insignia (Captain Tracey and the CMO in "Omega Glory"), Academy midshipmen wore miniature star insignia ("Shore Leave"), Monitor station (ST-TMP) and Earth Outpost station ("Balance of Terror") personnel wore circular insignias, Merchant Marines wore arrowhead insignias with two additional points ("Pirates of Orion"), Penal/Rehab Colony personnel wore the unique hand/bird insignia ("Dagger of the Mind" & "Whom Gods Destroy"), and Science Probe/Survey vessel personnel wore another circular insignia variant ("Charlie X"). FASA went along with the idea of individual ship insignias and cooked up the idea that the "Enterprise" was the only surviving "Constitution" class ship to return, thus Star Fleet decided to honor her by adopting her insignia and making it standard throughout the Fleet--in order to justify the changeover to standard arrowhead insignias in the films... So how about this 2277 date? It is possible that ALL insignia above were dropped by 2277, and this one standard insignia was adopted. In any case I don't think it's a big deal and I don't know why I'm typing up all this and making such a fuss...

The manual then states that the first starship "Enterprise" was commissioned in 2245. As stated above, there is an abundance of information working against this date. However, considering that it comes right after Captain April's service aboard the "Enterprise," it is not too far fetched to assume that the ship was REcommissioned following some minor refitting in this year. Following this, three other dates are mentioned. 2284: the ship was reassigned to training duty at the Academy--this date is right on the ball, and comes straight out of the Federation Reference Series (TO:01:04:01:09.41). The remaining two dates (2285: the destruction of the "Enterprise" in ST III, and the commissioning of NCC-1701-A in 2286) are a couple years off and should be dismissed as poor research on the part of the writers. Further research reveals that they got these two dates from Starfleet Prototype, a relatively new manual which incorporates elements of both the Officers Requirements Manuals and Ships Of The Star Fleet. Page 8 states that heavy cruisers began to be decommissioned in 2285--this was misinterpreted to mean that ST III was set in this year. While the ship designs in this manual are sound and are logical developments from Ships Of The Star Fleet and other "mainstream" Tech Fandom works, Starfleet Prototype has some inconsistencies: Transwarp is considered to be a success and ships are scheduled to be retrofitted with the new drive, certain starship classes consist of hundreds of ships, and the first paragraph on page 8 says the "Constitution" class was launched in 2260.

Sternbach and Okuda are, after all, technical designers and are not necessarily historians--at least not of the 23rd Century. Their realm is the 24th Century...

The TNG manual does give us some problems with starship classes. Beginning on page 3, it says that NCC-1701-A was a "Constitution" class starship (despite Tech Fandom, FASA, the novels, and everyone else being in agreement that the movie "Enterprise" was "Enterprise" class and bore little similarity to her original configuration!). I would guess that this was done for simplification, and to avoid confusing the readers. Even more disturbing is the statement that she was going to be christened the "Yorktown" as opposed to "Levant" (or originally "Ti Ho" if you like Shane Johnson's stuff)... I suppose it might have been one of many projected names chosen--but then what of the original "Yorktown"? The manual makes little distinction as to whether NCC-1701-A was in name the "Yorktown" or the actual ship upgraded. I go with the former. In any case she is now the "Enterprise." Too bad the problems didn't end here. Scotty views an outboard blueprint of the "Enterprise" in ST VI, titled "Constitution Class," the 1701-D cutaway poster doesn't acknowledge the "Enterprise" as anything other than an "Uprated Constitution Class" starship, and the new novels "Probe" and "Best Destiny" refer to 1701-A as "Constitution" class. My guess is that "Constitution Class" has become a general classification for all original "Constitution" class starships, their spinoffs, and other heavy cruisers of like design. "Bonhomme Richard," "Achernar," Tikopai" etal would be sub-classes. With the influx of new hull designs in the early 2290s, this simplification seems sound. Recently, Ships of the Star Fleet Volume 2 tackled this problem, proving me right, with the "Akyazi" perimeter action ships: "The terms 'class,' 'sub-class,' and 'group' are used somewhat loosely in Star Fleet parlance. For the purposes of this reference work, 'class' refers to the 'Akyazi' class as a whole, i.e. including the 'Arbiter' and 'Akula' designs. 'Sub-class' or 'group' refers to one of the three design-types individually, as in the 'Arbiter' sub-class or 'Akula' group."

Other instances of this oversimplification of starship classes are evident on page 32. The "Reliant," "Saratoga," "Lantree," and "Brittain" are all lumped together as "Miranda" class starships, despite the first two ships having been in service over 80 years ago--100 years or more ago going by their initial launching and commissioning. The "Reliant" was an "Avenger" class heavy frigate and the "Saratoga" was a "Cyane" class heavy frigate--incorporating newer systems and an improvement on the "Avenger" class, utilizing the same basic hull design. The "Miranda" class was constructed decades later, again utilizing the same general form as the "Avenger" class, and includes the "Lantree" and "Brittain." It may even be possible that the "Saratoga" was upgraded to the "Miranda" class. Yet we're talking about different classes. From the information in "Unnatural Selection" and "Night Terrors" the "Miranda" class has a ship's complement in the vicinity of 25 to 35, and is used as either a supply ship or as a research ship. A far cry from the "Avenger" and "Cyane" classes with complements in the range of 360.

(The Okudas) Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future

An even newer book, one filled with few surprises but much to talk about, is the Star Trek Chronology book by Michael and Denise Okuda. Many of the alternate views and dates which it is based upon have already been covered in this text. A shift of some 4+ years from the original series' years presented in this Okuda Chronology is due entirely to one of Okuda's "Basic Assumptions" in the introduction. It is that the classic episodes were set Precisely 300 years in the future from their original airdates. Again, this was already covered. Problems arise when the years of the original series episodes don't match up with the seasons although they are appropriately arranged in production order (i.e. Year 1 ends with "The Conscience of the King," with Year 2 starting with "The Galileo Seven" through "A Private Little War" and Year 3 starting from "Gamesters of Triskelion" and going through "Mark of Gideon"). All other timelines rank each seasons' episodes together, for the most part. While the Okuda Chronology is keen to point out Kirk's mention of UESPA Headquarters in "Charlie X" it fails to note that Kirk states it's Thanksgiving on Earth. If any season is to be split, it's shortly after this episode. Most annoying is the total absence of all 22 animated episodes which should logically follow immediately after the live-action series. There isn't even a year's gap after the series for "undocumented" novels and adventures covered elsewhere! Instead, "Turnabout Intruder" is taken as the Last adventure of the 5-year voyage: "Assumes the pilot episode 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' was about a year into the five-year mission and that the first season was about a year after that episode. Dorothy Fontana notes that if you were to count the animated episodes (which we did not do in this chronology), this could also account for the other two years of the five-year mission." She's damn right. The animateds are out: "This show, produced several years after the network run of the first series, is considered controversial in that there is significant question as to whether these episodes are part of the 'official' Star Trek saga..." Yet this didn't stop them from mentioning some material in "Yesteryear" (coincidentally the only animated episode written by Fontana) and Captain Robert April from "The Counter-Clock Incident." Even some of the FILMS are subjected to this: "Gene indicated that he considered some of the events in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country to be apocryphal...Our compromise was to mention Gene's discomfort with the material, leaving it up to the reader to judge its 'authenticity.'" Good thing they didn't set G.R. up with a questionaire rating each episode on a bad day, otherwise the Okuda Chronology might have left out the whole 3rd season! Great Bird of the Galaxy indeed... As expected, all novels and novelizations are thrown out as well.

The Movie Era of the Okuda Chronology is pretty barren, as are "The Distant Past," "The Twentieth Century," "The Twenty-first Century," "The Twenty-second Century," and "The Far Future"--but this timeline is working with so many restrictions, it's to be expected. More of a straightforward research work than an actual Treknical reference book like the TNG Technical Manual. The first Appendix covers "Undatable Events And Other Uncertainties" and is another sad example--because a large portion of the material speculated upon here is Here, found in the animated series, the novels, the novelizations, and the Treknical publications spanning two decades. First contact with Vulcan: "Strangers From The Sky." The invention of the transporter: "The Terratin Incident." The Vulcan Reformation: "Spock's World" and "The Romulan Way" also covering the Romulan War.

Okuda uses the First Romulan War and a statement made by Troi in "The Outcast" to prove that the Federation was founded in 2161. There are numerous problems with this. Fandom has always placed the U.F.P.'s formation closer to 2100 (right after Cochrane's last voyage) and the year 2127 eventually evolved. FASA/SFC places it much earlier, 2087, which obviously contradicts with "Metamorphosis." 2161 was supposedly chosen for the U.F.P. date, if I read the book correctly, because it was right after the Romulan War and in "Balance of Terror" Spock referred to it as the "Earth-Romulan Conflict" not mentioning the U.F.P. (as if not founded yet). The notes later point out, however, that this was entirely due to the U.F.P. and Star Fleet not having been established so early on in Trek's 1st season. Throughout much of the first season, starbases are referred to as "Earth Bases" and the "Enterprise" is reporting to UESPA (United Earth Space Probe Agency, a division of Star Fleet later phased out according to the Officers Manual). But the U.F.P.'s headquarters and Star Fleet Command are, after all, based on Earth. In "The Corbomite Manuever" Captain Kirk announces, "This is the United Earth Ship 'Enterprise.'" Uh, maybe the United Federation of Planets wasn't in existence by this episode either and there's the proof! Okuda later states that a tiny "MMCLXI" appearing on the Star Fleet Academy emblem in "The First Duty" is further proof--Roman numerals for 2061. Okuda's going against one of his "Dating Conventions" in that exact relative dates would be used: the Romulan War was a century prior to "Balance of Terror" and therefore should be around 2166 by his date calculations and his U.F.P. founding date no earlier. The novels (including "The Romulan Way" establishing the first ship to contact the Romulans was a Human-manned ship from Earth and the U.F.P.), and Fandom, and in frankly every source I know of outside of Okuda's Chronology, the United Federation of Planets was in existence during the First Romulan War. Basing When the U.F.P. was founded around the "Earth-Romulan Conflict" statement is very weak. The classic Star Fleet Technical Manual (which some fans regard as being more of an authentic Star Fleet Academy text than the TNG Technical Manual) on TO:00:01:60 shows the Treaty Of Peace "Between the Romulan Star Empire and the United Federation of Planets" mentioning the "Governor of the Federation Council of the United Federation of Planets." So what of Troi's statement in the TNG episode? All she mentions is the founding date of A federation and never explicitly claims it to be The United Federation of Planets. For all we know, Deanna might have been referring to the Federation of Card Players (she was engaged in a card game at the time) or any other federation. And what of the Academy logo's number? More confusion. We take it that Okuda assumes the U.F.P. and Star Fleet were created simultaneously as he appears to view them as being one and the same. The Line Officers Requirements, Starfleet Dynamics manual, and even Star Fleet Battles claim that Star Fleet was put together many years later (the two former sources giving the year 2183) and in ST II Carol Marcus says "Star Fleet has kept the peace for a hundred years" (2287 - 100 = circa 2187). The 2161 on the Academy logo--and we must stress Star Fleet Academy, Sol sector as there are no doubt other Star Fleet Academies throughout U.F.P. space--may have been when the building was erected, when Star Fleet was first drawn up on Earth or might even be a stardate. Other fans theorize that the U.F.P. was established in 2127 but not founded until 2161 because of the Romulan War and numerous Earth-bound problems. We do know that the homeport of the U.S.S. "Essex" in 2167 was Starbase 12 commanded by Admiral Narsu as established in "Power Play." It seems unlikely that the U.F.P. and/or Star Fleet could establish a minimum of 12 command bases within 5 or 6 years. The construction of starbases are authorized under the Articles of Federation.

There are quite a few other disagreements... I'll nitpick, starting with the ordering of the TNG episodes by Production Order. As already discussed, Aired Order for The Next Generation episodes makes more sense as they are clearly intended to be seen in that order, unlike the thrown together aired sequence of classic episodes. Throughout the Okuda Chronology in this section, they make exceptions to this episode and that: "Unification Part II" was filmed before Part I but should be swapped obviously, "Symbiosis" was produced after "Skin of Evil" but should be swapped because Tasha was killed in the latter etc. Aired order makes more sense and recently the stardates have been perfectly in synch with the aired order.

Alexander Rozhenko the Chronology states as having been conceived in the holodeck in "The Emissary." If this were true, the child would be less than 2 years old in "Reunion" when he first appears! It's been speculated that Klingon kids mature faster than Humans, but Really! In "The Emissary" Worf had a relationship with K'Ehleyr 6 years previous and this is when I believe Alexander was conceived. She kept their son from Worf until "Reunion"--no wonder Worf was shouting "Why didn't you tell me!" Yet in a more recent episode, Alexander gives the stardate of his birth which seems to prove Okuda's Chronology correct. Yet this episode establishes him to be a compulsive liar and in a later scene Worf tells his son that he was orphaned at an even younger age than Alexander. Worf was 6 years old when his parents were killed at the Khitomer Massacre, therefore Alexander at the time of this episode is over 6 years old. What we saw on the holodeck in "The Emissary" was nothing more than a Klingon bonding ceremony. But then along comes the more recent episode "Firstborn." All's well at the start, Worf telling Alexander that he's approaching the Age of Ascension and that he must participate in the Right before the age of 13 if he wants to become a warrior. That's consistent with this since Worf would be about 10 years old at the time of "Firstborn." All's not well, however, towards the end when old Alexander tells Worf that he was a mere 3 years of age when K'Ehlyer was killed. If Alexander was conceived on the holodeck in "The Emissary," a mid-second season episode, he would have been born no sooner than the third season (going by Okuda's assumptions). K'Ehlyer died in the early fourth season episode "Reunion" so (going by Okuda's assumptions) Alexander would have been about 1 year old. So I guess we now have three con- flicts regarding Alexander's date of birth. Considering the above info, I'll stick with the 2360 date and assume Alexander was speaking of Klingon years in "Firstborn