Star Trek Chronology Notes

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 the first couple of Trek movies following ST-TMP, at least for the start of the "Spock Trilogy." Although this could represent 1701-A's computer crash in ST V it was not quite a total failure. If it refers to the "Excelsior's" failure in ST III, Data's statement is precise to within half a Month (going by TNG stardate nomen- clature and the date of the original "Enterprise's" destruction given in Ships of the Star Fleet, Volume 1)! 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 sup- plied by the original U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual. Contrary to what Okuda says in his chronology book, James Doohan was born in 1920 not 1922 which makes Okuda's "basic assumption" of gauging Scotty's birth year by adding 300 years to the actor's age invalid in this instance. Further- more, 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. Back to actors and characters ages: the U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual gives Kirk's year of birth as 2229 and a statue erected in Riverside Iowa by fans substan- tiates that Kirk will be born in the late 2220s.

The latest Trek film Generations probably settles this date differential conclusively. Presented with the stardate of 48632 for TNG's era and breaking it down to the year, month, and day (read on, into the Stardate section for in-depth details) yields the date August 18, 2371. Subtrac- ting 78.2 years from it (or 39.1 x 2, the cycle for the reappearance of the Nexus in our area of the galaxy) gives us around June 6, 2293 for the opening of the film when the "Excelsior" class "Enterprise" is christened and launched (which incidentally is Very similar to the christening of the original "Enterprise" as described by Alan Dean Foster in Star Trek Log 7). If the average time between a ship's laying down and launching for the various ships of the line in the Chronology are studied, you'll find that they are typically launched from 1 to 1.5 years after their keels are laid (excluding brand new lead ships for new classes). ST VI fits like a glove, to quote Scotty in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," being almost precisely one and a half years before Generations. The Okuda timeline, however, will say that ST VI occurred in 2293, meaning that Generations was a matter of months after the decommissioning of 1701-A: insufficient time to build and launch an "Excelsior" class starship. Kirk's refer- ences to having met and romanced Antonia 7 to 9 years previous (2284-2286) and returning to Star Fleet (having briefly retired sometime after his 3rd "Enterprise" 5-year mission?) also fit quite well--better in fact than Okuda's given dates which would place the Antonia relationship sometime between ST II and IV. More on Okuda's works later. Finally, the reporter in Generations says that 1701-B was the first "Enterprise" to be launched without Kirk in command in 30 years. Although undoubtedly a roundabout figure, this would set the start of the classic series' first season around 2263--well within the range for these episodes, especially consid- ering the "Enterprise's" ("Bonhomme Richard" configuration) upgrade and the "official" start of the 5-year mission which leans more towards 2261.

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 dila- tion 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 popular 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.


Contents | Prev | Next