By James Dixon

The file demanded its own creation. Back in the 1970s when
I became conscious of Treknical continuity I noticed how fandom was
beginning to build up the fabric of Trek's background. The
best way to monitor continuity is with a timeline. After getting
my hands on the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual, the (original
spiral-bound) U.S.S. Enterprise Officers Manual, and Star Trek
Maps I was destined to compile something (for the dates Meshed!).
Then in 1980 came Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology which
contradicted these dates and despite the nice illustrations didn't
hold water all that well. A schism occurred in fandom with the
gamers supporting SFC and the hardcore Treknical fans supporting
the former timeline. This was when I picked up paper and pencil
and began a "Version 0" of what you're reading now which amounted to
just a few pages. It wasn't enough just skimming the surface
(episodes both live and animated), so I began to take notes on the
Star Trek novels and, particularly, the Treknical publications. My
first computers (Commodore 64's and 128's) made matters easier until my
timeline reached a megabyte and I ported it over to a 486SX PC.
By then, The Next Generation was being broadcast, only making a
bigger project out of this little experiment. Even more Trek
series followed and more novels written about each of them.
Now it's over two megs and still growing.

As it grew, various discrepancies grew. The more contributors to
Trek, the more diversity and conflicts with each new work (some
people backing specific interpretations of older works, others simply
developing their own original framework). I've tried to integrate all
of them together, for without this measure of IDIC the Trek Universe
would be smaller, duller, though more internally consistent. I've
tried my best to fit all the little pieces of data together, hoping to
shed some new light on old episodes and to at least provide others
with fandom's attempts to catalog and document Trek history.

Here I have tried to consistently mold as much material together as
possible without generating gross contradictions. My approach was to
start with materials from the beginning of Star Trek and work with them
linearly to the present time. If a particular source carried more
weight than others, influenced other works, and was logically sound, I
would accept it. On the other hand, if a later sourcer source was
riddled with errors and contradicted stable earlier sources I would
reject it, or at least question the accuracy of its bulk and note it as
such. The information is balanced against that in the episodes and films
which usually holds priority. Usually. Mistakes do crop up, generated
by writers' unfamiliarity with Star Trek's background. Compromises are
sometimes necessary, again based upon how much weight each item carries
and how well it all fits together. My linear approach, starting from the
Beginning, working forwards, building on foundations established in
earlier lore, all Without making blind "basic assumptions" on critical
dating issues, can yield different results which can disagree to a
certain extent with the so-called "Official" views. Mainly this is
due to the scope involved. To quote Jean-Marc Lofficier (from his
'Doctor Who: The Universal Databank'): "Like archeologists studying the
records of long-dead civilizations, it doesn't mean that any of us are
wrong--simply that we followed different sets of rules." What
distiguishes my timeline from others is the fact that I've drawn upon the
Whole without limit. Doing so, I've had far more materials to reference
and thus more data to integrate into a timeline. The so-called "Official"
ignores a Very high percentage of the Trek Universe and plays very loosely
with dates, often using arbitrary numbers. If you prefer a limited
"Official" chronology (which in itself has been contradicted numerous
times by later episodes and movies) then read no further. Run down to
your local bookstore and shell down $25, but don't be disappointed by the
text:photos ratio and its narrow scope.

Before giving you the wrong idea, let me first define the term Fandom
Publication. By this I mean virtually anything that doesn't have
"official" plastered all over it. All the Star Trek novels published by
both Pocket Books and Bantam Books fall into this category. Included
here are also those Trek publications from Ballantine Books (Star Fleet
Technical Manual, Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual, Star Trek Maps).
Despite the Paramount license, they're still tagged "unofficial!"
Also we have high-quality, mass-marketed fan works by little-known
publishers, references such as Ships of the Star Fleet, Starship Design,
and Starfleet Prototype, not to mention the Star Fleet Battles and FASA
contributions. And tons of other specialized manuals and blueprints.
Now, all of these items are or were available at one time or another
through major book-sellers, at any well-stocked convention, and/or
advertised in Starlog magazine (and related SF-magazines). These
publications are NOT, I repeat NOT, little-known, cheezy and obscure
"basement" zines runoff on Xerox copiers. Most are of equal quality to
any mainstream "official" product, are printed on quality paper, and many
times surpass the "official" equivalent in research and illustrations, not
to mention the attention to details. Unfortunately, as is the case with
many blueprints, bootlegging and piracy has resulted in sub-standard
copies in circulation. The bottom line here is that I have not featured
any fanzine materials, unless by luck said stories were printed in a mass-
circulated anthology book such as Star Trek: The New Voyages, or if the
material from zines made it into a mainstream Treknical publication or
novel (which is far more common an occurance, as is the case with Spock's
first name and certain starship classes). See, for every Great zine
story out there, at least two dogs exist. It's been 30 years and nobody's
read All of them. Unlike Treknical publications, they do not build upon
past works and are more the product of the author's imagination than
anything else. They vary from good Trek adventures worthy of being
episodes...to pornography (K/S: Kirk and Spock as lovers), to wild
crossover stories involving different SF series coming together, to even
more bizarre stories offering background on the universe few fans could
accept. Incorporating all these would be: A. a lifetime project in itself
to obtain them all (despite Trexindex attempts) and, B. involve even a
greater degree of personal judgment regarding what facts to accept over
others. I've drawn the line here, for at least the mainstream novels
have some tiny degree of quality control (even if most of the QC's
slipped into a wormhole lately), and usually the mainstream Treknical
works hold their own via the standards they often try to live up to.

There are countless ways to document and compile a Trek timeline, and no
one way is more "correct" than another. However, in my opinion, taking
in the whole is, by far, more beneficial than rejecting the near-whole.
Here's a simple example of IDIC at work... In Star Trek-The Motion
Picture, during our first view of the Epsilon 9 station, we can hear on
subspace radio three starships communicating. They are the scouts
"Columbia" (NCC-621) and "Revere" (NCC-595), and the dreadnought
"Entente" (NCC-2120). These starships (names, types, and NCCs) were taken
straight from the best-selling classic Star Fleet Technical Manual by
Franz Joseph (TO:01:04:15 and TO:01:04:25) published years earlier.
The manual identifies the "Columbia" as a "Cygnus" class scout, the
"Revere" as an "Hermes" class scout, and the "Entente" as a "Federation"
class dreadnought. All three starship classes have been documented
throughout Technical Fandom over the years, and are frequently referenced
in Ships of the Star Fleet, the Federation Reference Series, the original
USS "Enterprise" Officers Manual, Jackill's manuals, Star Fleet Battles,
and countless blueprints have been structured around them. They've
been cropping up in fandom for over twenty years. The "Hermes" class
represents the definitive scout/destroyer design, while the "Federation"
class is the definitive 3-nacelled dreadnought design. Complete, and
consistent, class listings for all three ship classes exist, as well as
their specs and even, to a certain extent, individual ship histories.
Chronologically speaking, dates of ships being laid down, launched, and
commissioned are also very consistent. The years jibe with other sources.
Some novels and manuals even speak of Kirk and Pike serving aboard sister
ships of these starship classes during their pre-captaincy years.
In fact, complete booklets of general plans, detailing every deck in the
same Franz Joseph "Constitution" Class Booklet of General Plans format,
were published for both the "Hermes" and "Federation" classes. Their
internal designs are very logically extrapolated from the "Constitution"
Class blueprints, being of a similar modular design. Incidentally,
Joseph's deck plans and other tech drawings have been featured on bridge
monitor screens in the first three Star Trek feature films. Other
starship classes of similar design spawned by these include the "Saladin"
and "Siva" class destroyers, the "Monoceros" class scout, and the
"Federation (II)," "Ascension," "Star League," and "Adamant" class
dreadnoughts. The novels "Enemy Unseen," "The Starship Trap," "Vulcan!"
and "Dreadnought!" all feature "Hermes" or "Federation" class starships.
"Dreadnought!" revolves around a stolen prototype "Federation" class
dreadnought, the U.S.S. "Star Empire" (also documented in all class
listings) which leads to the Rittenhouse Scandal mentioned in other books
including the novel "The Lost Years," the first of a best-selling trilogy.
After ST:TNG's first season, a 24th Century "Olympus" class dreadnought
design appeared in fandom, clearly based upon the 3-nacelle dreadnought
design lineage. In the future timeline of "All Good Things..." the
refitted NCC-1701-D bears a striking resemblence to the "Olympus"
class dreadnought. All of the above Does Not Exist in the "Official"
realm, but is very real to hardcore fans. Furthermore, it's only one
tiny example of the impact of Treknical publications. A caring Trek
historian can't ignore all of it. Then why doesn't Paramount's paid
"experts" take that extra step? Even Mr. Okuda, with his acknowledged
over 140 people (not counting photo credits, friends, and family), has
far more resources and money to thrust into a project of this magnitude.
Answer: They Don't Care, for they don't need to. It looks good enough
at a glance and will sell, so that's that. If it means ignoring chunks
of Roddenberry-approved (or based) information to make it easier for
themselves, they will. They do what they do to make a profit, not for
any great love for Trek history or continuity. Now what you're reading
here is the product of just one person's (mine!) love of Star Trek, being
a Fan of this particular field of Trek from the very beginning.
I rest my case and I hope you enjoy it.

The Fandom Star Trek Chronology is very simply structured. It
consists of the title page, a general "Treknical" introduction, these
intro pages, the main body Chronology, and abundant notes. These
notes you might consider reading first in light of the concentrated
and complex nature of this file, including stardate nomenclature and
source documentation. Certain areas are of course open to interpretation
and my attempts at reconciliation are covered in full here (or at least as
far as I dare to delve without creating another big file). My use of
call letters (some may appear familiar to you) to document the entries was
done as a space saver to help limit the size of this already overlong
file. If I had the space and the time I would love to expand upon the
summaries, the notes, and many other portions--but there are limits and
limiting the scope of this work by Not including the comic books alone
probably saved a megabyte.

It's entirely in plain ASCII text, for simplicity and compatibility.
No fancy fonts, no colors, not even italics. I don't need them.
For this reason a simple text reader capable of handling long files is
recommended to properly read the Chronology (a frequent complain among
today's users). Many shareware readers/text editors are available
including Aurora (V1.01), Dexter (V.2.00), and MultiVu (V2.1).

Live Long and prosper!