James Dixon Timeline

Star trek spaceflight chronology

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: 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. 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: 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. 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:

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 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” as a couple sources indicate that Klingon years are longer than Standard/Terran years. Although in “The Final Reflection” it’s a mere fraction of a solar year longer, we again don’t know if the homeworld in TNG’s time is the same homeworld a century earlier (if the Klingons relocated would they possibly change their own timekeeping system to match that of their new adapted homeworld?). Yes, this is Very confusing and messy, and I regret having brought this up as an example.

Blind assumptions is another problem. Simply because Worf is a Klingon apparently born within the Klingon Empire doesn’t necessarily mean he was born on the Klingon homeworld and that homeworld isn’t necessarily named Kronos, spelled “Qo’noS” in the Okuda Chronology. The same goes for Riker being born in Valdez, Alaska on Earth, Deanna on Betazed etc. “Conundrum” confirms that Dr. Crusher was born on Earth’s moon, as an example. Greg Jein’s original photos of never-before-seen ship models causes additional trouble. An ancient Romulan warship and the “Botany Bay” departing Earth are one thing, but photos of a DY-750, the S.S. “Valiant” and the “Essex”–models invented strictly for this book–are inappropriate for a chronology claiming to be based entirely upon episodes and movies. Are they Researching Trek history or Inventing it?

The Okuda Chronology’s “eyeballing” of certain events is rather crude. Due to lack of material for specific dates, a “window” in which the event could have occurred was created, and the specific event dropped within. The given example for this is Spock’s promotion to Captain. They say it was some time between ST-TMP (2271) and ST II (2285) so they arbitrarily chose 2284. Why 2284? Beats me. I chose not to eyeball dates at all whenever possible. In a case like this I would merely acknowledge the fact that Spock would later be promoted to Captain of the “Enterprise” in an earlier entry regarding Spock. If future novels would provide more concrete information for a specific year I would use it. Chekov’s year of assignment to the “Reliant,” McCoy’s medical career, Saavik’s entry into the Academy etc. are all blind guesses. Saavik’s year of entry, for instance, is based strictly on Star Fleet Academy being a 4-year institution–but Merik was said to have dropped out of the Academy after his 5th year (“Bread And Circuses”), and there are text references to other Star Fleet officers remaining on at the Academy as instructors or for post-graduate work. The Okuda Chronology also seems to assume that 17 being the average age of Academy entry is a good start to map-out specific characters careers. Saavik was certainly not in her teens in ST II. The Okuda Chronology automatically assumes that episodes span an average of 2 weeks, so if an event is described as happening 2 months before a given episode it’s slotted in 4 episodes earlier. I find this to be unacceptable since episode lengths vary as do season lengths. The last season of the classic series, in particular, is com- pacted down by the addition of the animated episodes, the upgrade time of the “Enterprise,” and the 2 months expended in “The Paradise Syndrome.” The spellings of planet and character names for specific TNG episodes I don’t pretend to have memorized and the chronology was at least helpful in this respect. Yet after decades it’s a surprise to find the chronicles of the classic episodes to be full of mispelled names in Okuda’s book. Bjo Trimble’s Concordance, James Blish’s novelizations, and the myriad fan-produced works almost invariably match up letter for letter. Yet here we find “Khan NooniEn Singh” and Dr. “NooniEn Soong” spelled incorrectly in every reference. Likewise for the planet “SaHndara,” Spock’s home city “ShiRkahr,” Dr. “SevErin,” “hyronalYn,” and “Rigelians” just to name a few after spot checking. No big deal–until the book is used as a writer’s guide by Trek authors. And why’s the development of the drug “hyronalyn” listed as being one of the six “Scientific And Exploratory Milestones” of Trek in Appendix A?

Speaking of authors, Pocket Books advertises it as: “At last! Here is the official illustrated timeline for Star Trek. Exhaustively researched by Star Trek production staff members. ” Even on the back cover. While the inside Introduction ends with “We do not, however, want this to intimidate our writer friends or inhibit the imaginations of fans who may have differing interpretations of the Star Trek timeline. As such, we encourage both fans and writers to take this material with a grain of salt and to enjoy it with the spirit intended, as a fun way to explore the Star Trek universe.” This alone should provide our more conservative Trek fans with hours of manic confusion. It’s already screwed up the novel “Sarek” Big Time and a key date in “Shadows on the Sun” (which I have interpreted as a transpositional error). “Traitor Winds” was also influenced by the Okuda Chronology, though dates within are 1 year off.

At the time of this writing, another Okuda book is out called The Star Trek Encyclopedia. It is essentially the Okuda Chronology reformatted into alphabetical entries and expanded to include the classic series and Deep Space Nine. Nothing beyond this such as the Animated series since that’s “unofficial.” It reads like a watered-down and plag- iarized Star Trek Concordance except that it’s highly biased and fully backs the Okuda Chronology and TNG Technical Manual–and little else! The NCCs of “Constitution” class starships (among other classes) Badly conflict with the past 20 years’ worth of Technical Fandom publications, going back to the Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual and U.S.S. “Enterprise” Blueprints. NCCs are even unjustifiably provided for such vessels as the U.S.S. “Horizon” and “Archon” with the same forged photos ported over from the Okuda Chronology rep- resenting these ships–with additional forged photos of “Constitution” class starships with altered NCCs. Quite frankly, I don’t think the casual fan will be able to tell a “genuine” photo from a “forged” photo. Another section of this encyclopedia summarizing the decks of the old “Enterprise” relocates Main Engineering from the aft primary hull to the secondary hull and even adds antimatter containment bottles to Deck 23! Studying the book, I get the distinct impression that the Okudas are emphasizing that 24th Century (NCC-1701-D) treknology (from ship construction to phaser settings to engineering concepts) applies also to 23rd Century treknology! Does the Star Fleet Technical Manual hold Any sort of merit any longer? Certainly not according to this new book! Many of the same gripes with the Okuda Chronology are multiplied with the Okuda Encyclopedia as endless entries cite the Okuda-derived years for referencing events. The book is therefore highly questionable at times. Totally disregarding the founders, they go too far and not only bite the hand that fed them but also apparently spit on Fandom. Certainly nobody expects these people to attempt a project of this magnitude, studying the many novels and manuals out there, but there is much “common ground” accepted by the fans for over two decades, general concepts shared by everyone from Franz Joseph to Shane Johnson–basics rejected by Okuda. The Okudas only acknowledge their own work: anything else to them is “not official.”

Vulcan Dates

Some dates are not Earth Old Calendar dates, but Vulcan. Two different systems are in use: Vulcan Years and Vulcan Old Date. The former was used in the animated episode “Yesteryear” and is apparently the current system in use on Vulcan. 8877 Vulcan Years is equal to the Earth date 2232 A.D., the date of Spock’s Kahs-wan maturity test. It is this dating system which is used in certain Tech Fandom books notably the Star Fleet Medical Reference (which happens to footnote that they are dates Post-Surak which does not follow certain sources). Vulcan Old Dates seem to be used strictly in the novels and are longer than 4 digits. A Vulcan year is equivalent to 123.02 Earth days according to the U.S.S. “Enterprise” Officer’s Manual which originally appeared in Geoffrey Mandel’s Star Fleet Handbook. Gene Roddenberry’s novelization of Star Trek-The Motion Picture supports this in a footnote (9 Vulcan years is approx. 2.8 years)–very close. Spaceflight Chronology, on the other hand, states that Vulcan years are LONGER than Earth years. and it would seem that the authors of Trek fiction may be working by this. The date 140005 is given for the death of Zakal in “The Lost Years” AND for the year of The 80,000 departing Vulcan in “The Romulan Way”–yet it cannot be considering the later references in “Romulan Way” place the migration at at least 100 A.D. In any case, the V.O.D. given in “Lost Years” for the present day return of the “Enterprise” from her 5-year mission is wrong. Romulan dates in “The Romulan Way” are expressed in A.S. (After Settlement) and I’ve steered away from trying to convert them over to Terran years. The length of a Romulan year is unknown and the novel is confusing enough in the constant switching between Vulcan, Romulan, and Terran years–not to mention the subjective time expenditure aboard the sublight generation ships. Problems very much like this also cropped up with the novel “The Final Reflection.” Even using the length of the Klingon year expressed within, the resulting timeline for that era is somewhat uneven. The author adds further con- fusion by featuring Spock as a 7 year old child and McCoy as a baby –at the same time. Their ages should be reversed!

Stardates

Whenever possible I’ve added stardate references drawn from the episodes. Note that when two stardates are given they do not represent the true “upper and lower bounds” for the episode but rather the first and last stardates given.

Unaired stardates given in this version of the Chronology need some explanation, as I was reluctant to feature many of them in the first place. Stardates for “The Cage” and most birthdates of the crew (excluding Kirk’s stardate of birth taken from his tombstone in “Where No Man Has Gone Before”) are from the U.S.S. “Enterprise” Officers Manual. Bjo Trimble’s Star Trek Concordance was the source for the additional stardates of “City On The Edge Of Forever,” “A Piece Of The Action,” and “Patterns Of Force.” These were never incorporated into the episodes, as far as I know. The first two episodes’ stardates were also used in the Photonovels (providing an additional closing stardate for “A Piece Of The Action”), and All (including the erroneous stardate of “Beyond The Farthest Star”) were used in Asherman’s Star Trek Compendiums–proof of plagiarism, rather than research, on his part. The Photonovel of “Day Of The Dove” provided stardates for that episode. The novelization of “Relics” was where the stardate for the U.S.S. “Jenolen’s” disappearance came from. The stardate for “The Next Phase” comes from Ro’s death certificate display screen in sickbay. Alternate stardates for the animated episodes from Alan Dean Foster’s 10 books are provided, in brackets, whenever available or not matching those in the actual aired cartoons. They’re considerably more consistent, like TNG stardates, but the 1 stardate unit = 1 solar day rule does not hold up. All animated episode stardates are therefore given and the only unknown stardates for the original episodes are for “Assignment: Earth,” “Mirror, Mirror,” “The Omega Glory,” and “That Which Survives.”

Episodes in the original series, animated series, and novels do not follow sequentially. If stardates were in order, then the animated episode “The Magicks of Megas Tu” (sd. 1254.4) would precede “Where No Man Has Gone Before” (sd. 1312.4), the first episode with Kirk in command. This simply cannot be. Even in the latter episode, on Kirk’s tombstone, his stardate of birth reads 1277.1 (even though his middle initial is “R” instead of “T” on the same stone). Other episodes overlap stardates. “Miri” begins at stardate 2713.5 and goes through 2717.3. “Dagger of the Mind” is from 2715.1 through 2715.2! In other instances, stardates jump back and forth in individual episodes (listen carefully to the logs in “The Enemy Within,” “Spock’s Brain,” “Gamesters of Triskelion,” “Mudd’s Women,” and many others). Either Kirk and Spock are very careless or else there’s something to stardates being nonsequential.

According to Gene Roddenberry himself, in The Making of Star Trek: “This time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel’s speed and space warp ability. It has little relationship to Earth’s time as we know it. One hour aboard the ‘Enterprise’ at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star date specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and it’s position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading.”

“I’m not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense,” Gene later said. I wish it did make sense, it’s been bugging me since the first time I watched Star Trek. One theory is that the U.F.P. Treaty Zone might be divided up into “time zones” where stardates may increase and decrease. This would explain why the date crashes down to 1254.4 in “Magicks of Megas-Tu” when the “Enterprise” is at the galactic center. Why the dating system should be this way is beyond me. If stardate shifting is indeed tied to warp travel, another theory is that Cochrane’s Factor (see Star Trek Maps’ Intro to Navigation Manual) might play a vital role. Anyhow, stardates are “supposed to” progress normally outside of warp travel in a fixed place–at least all the research I’ve done into it says so. Under these conditions, the numbers to the left of the decimal point are days and the digit to the right of the decimal represents the time (in tenths of a day). So an example would be stardate 4213.5 being noon of one day and 4214.5 being noon of the next day. For more accuracy it may be extended to two digits after the decimal point. This was the case in “Requiem For Methuselah,” the only episode from the original series to do so. Time was of the essence as Kirk desperately needed Ryetalyn to combat the plague aboard ship, as you recall. Note that this timekeeping system in use aboard ship is not necessarily in synch with the ship’s own timekeeping system of military hours, but in the case of the episodes “Contagion” and “Identity Crisis” (regarding visual logs) they WERE. If the digit is a true representation of the time in tenths of a solar day, then the following table could be used: As if there isn’t enough confusion, Star Trek III showed us excerpts from the flight recorder of the “Enterprise” moments before Captain Spock’s death in the engine room. Admiral Kirk reviewed the following on his monitor: Stardate 8128.76 (McCoy: “You’re Not going in there.”) Stardate 8128.77 (McCoy: “No! You’ll flood the whole compartment!”) Stardate 8128.78 (Spock: “Ship: Out of danger?”) These also support the sequential nature of stardates, the second place after the decimal representing minutes. More precisely 1.666 minutes, judging by the two digits immediately to the right on the display, which are seconds (from 00 to 99). Assuming the “seconds counter” is indeed the stardate taken to the 4th and 5th figures then each full stardate unit is 166.666 minutes, or 2.777 hours (which naturally conflicts with the previously described stardate system associated with the classic series). So rather than being based on tenths of day, this variation is built upon 100 seconds. More insanity: ST II begins at stardate 8130 as spoken by Chekov in the “Reliant’s” log! Theories abound, ranging from different stardate systems to the flow of time being different aboard a starship (The Best of Trek #1).

Stardates used in The Next Generation are taken much more seriously. They consist of 5 digits to the left of the decimal point. According to the Writer’s Guide, the first digit (a 4) is used to represent The Next Generation, the following digit represents the season, and the remaining 3 digits vary. This was done strictly for continuity, to keep the numbers within an acceptable range: 4xxxx.x. A very reasonable range, too: stardate 7412 (STTMP) + 36500 (100 years converted to days) = stardate 43912, or late in the year 2366–less than a year off, taking Star Trek-The Motion Picture as taking place in mid-2267 A.D. Too bad this doesn’t work for all stardates, but the range is what matters. Even with this degree of refining stardates, the episodes are still not in order. Stardates jumped all over in the first season of The Next Generation. The second season episodes were almost aired in stardate order. By TNG’s third season and onwards, episodes were almost aired in stardate order. Taking this a step further, we know from “The Neutral Zone,” a first season episode, that the year was 2364 and all stardates of this time began with 41. Likewise, stardates of TNG’s 2nd season began with 42, and the third season 43. Therefore, to calculate the year a TNG stardate falls in, take the first two digits of the stardate and add 2323 (fans of R.A. Wilson & Robert Shea’s “The Illuminatus! Trilogy” should LOVE this). One may reason therefore that 1,000 stardate units equals one year and by dividing this up we can determine exactly where in the year a specific stardate falls in relation to the old Terran calendar. This system, while extremely logical, is flawed because Next Generation episodes once again don’t progress in stardate order and even if sorted by stardates simply do not hold together for the various reasons stated. Recent episodes have also almost entirely destroyed this system, such as Lwaxana Troi’s marriage on stardate 30620.1 in “Dark Page” which is seemingly after Deanna Troi’s birth. Stardate 47329.4 is also logged as being one day after the Battle of Wolf 359’s fourth anniversary in “Second Sight”–but “The Best of Both Worlds” was set around stardate 43990 not 43328. Then there’s the curious case of almost every star- date’s right-most digit lining up with the ship’s time whenever displayed side-by-side as in the logs of the “Yamato” in “Contagion” as with classic stardates. Yet assuming there is truth to the reasoning that one year is equal to 1,000 stardates and they progress normally, I have employed a simple conversion program and have expressed the theoretical Earth date in braces (<>) following the given stardate(s) when- ever available. Whenever a TNG Earthdate was given I have also provided the approximate stardate in braces. Still, let me emphasize that these are only “computer generated approximations” and again do not hold up 100%, especially when you examine the sequence of stardates in TNG’s first season. They are meant to serve as rough references using our calendar system. Leap years are another factor, the program I employed (StarDateCalc 1.02 by Afonso Infante) supposedly takes these into account. The TNG Technical Manual gives the “Enterprise’s” commissioning date in both stardate and Terran Old Cal- endar and they match up perfectly with this program. Wilford Nusser and other Trekkers likewise have written similar programs and have gotten the same results. According to this system, 1 day is equal to about 2.74 stardate units, 1 hour is 0.114, 1 minute is 0.0019, and one second is 0.0000317.

Comparison With Other Trek Timelines ‘Cities In Flight’ is a non-Trek collection by James Blish featuring many technological elements later to be approached in “Spock Must Die!” “Mudd’s Angels” and the 12 Blish novelizations. The FASA timeline also includes the Goldstein Spaceflight Chronology book and the contributions of Shane Johnson. The Okuda Chronology features nothing but live-action episodes and films. The Roden timeline is from History Of The Vessel “Enterprise.”

Where: TOS = The Original Series TAS = The Animated Series TMS = The Movie Series TNG = The Next Generation X = Not covered/featured ? = Unsure (Spaceflight Chronology claims the “Enterprise” completed only 3 of her 5 years under Kirk without the animated series although elements from TAS are touched upon) The differential is expressed in years relative to this Chronology and represents average values only. Specific events may vary by several years.

For history’s sake, here is a copy of the Original Trek timeline which started it all, reproduced in its entirety and exact wording. It’s certainly interesting to compare these early dates against the ones in the Chronology, for some dates have changed radically over the years while others haven’t changed in two decades:

STAR TREK TIME LINE By Chuck Graham

First published in “Menagerie V” then in The Starfleet Handbook circa 1975.

Miscellaneous Notes And A Little Speculation

After reading “Survivors” it’s clear that there are two different New Paris colonies. New Paris was first mentioned in “The Galileo Seven” in the original series as the destination of the “Enterprise’s” medical supplies. In “Survivors,” New Paris is an ancient Earth colony settled sometime in the 21st Century–and completely out of contact with Earth and the U.F.P. until its rediscovery in the 24th Century. Tech Fandom has the original New Paris world settled in 2105 A.D. and a major colony. Since the TNG New Paris colony was apparently settled decades earlier, the later colony might have been named after the former world believed to be “lost.” Anyhow, it’s just a name, and in “Legacy” New Paris was simply called Turkana IV.

If the dating of the planet-killer by Spock in Blish’s “Star Trek 3” novelization of “The Doomsday Machine” is accurate, then the Borg could very well be the oldest race in the galaxy. The Blish dates are highly questionable (and wrong in many cases) but they are still dates and sometimes the only sources available. If the over 3 billion years old figure is correct, then the Borg undoubtedly started out assimilating non-Humanoid races and bore little resemblance to the way they are known in TNG’s time. Another interesting point is the interior of the anti-Borg planet-killer described in “Vendetta.” Crystalline structures that harness all matter of energy: physical, kinetic, electromagnetic. In “Beyond The Farthest Star,” the “Enterprise” encounters a gigantic alien pod ship derelict over three hundred million years old, once commanded by an insectoid being. Part of its interior consisted of ceiling-high energy accumulator wands: receptors to attract and store energy much like that in the planet-killer. Apparently the Borg absorbed this race also. And speaking of the Borg, it’s assumed that the “mites” or “super Klingons” mentioned in “Probe” are in fact the Borg–something which the author intended and all readers seem to be in agreement with.

There are two different classes of “Galaxy” class starships. The first “Galaxy” class ships were commissioned sometime near the end of the 5-year mission. These are small, fast exploratory ships and the first manned vessels to pierce the Barrier and explore other galaxies–far-fetched, but I don’t write this stuff! They are mentioned in Vonda N. McIntyre novels and in Diane Carey’s “Dreadnought!” novel. The more familiar “Galaxy” class ships we are accustomed to were commissioned about a century later and have only the class name in common.

We know from “Peak Performance” that the “Constellation” class cruisers are at least 80 years old. In the novel “Time For Yesterday,” another U.S.S. “Constellation” is destroyed. It is not the same ship from “The Doomsday Machine,” nor is it the frigate of Ships Of The Fleet. This starship appears to be the class ship of the “Constellation” class of TNG, but Starfleet Prototype says that the “Constellation” class star cruisers were newly-proposed and still on the drawing boards (design tanks) in the 2290s. For more confusion read Diane Duane’s novel “My Enemy, My Ally” featuring yet another U.S.S. “Constellation.” It wasn’t until the much later (“The Romulan Way”) that this adventure could be accurately dated 2270 by working backwards. The book makes it clear that she’s a new ship carrying the same name as Decker’s starship, but the “Constellation” won’t be laid down for another 3 years and won’t be commissioned until the year 2275. In Addition, her name will be changed from “Constellation II” to “Truxtun” (according to several technical fandom references). The same also applies to the U.S.S. “Intrepid.” There’s an error in counting years here, but where? Then along comes Jackill’s Star Fleet Reference Manual II saying that the “Constellation” class was authorized in 2285– maybe that explains it.

As with the U.S.S. “Constellation,” a Vulcan spacecraft called the “T’Pau” appears in the old novel “The Klingon Gambit.” An old Vulcan ship of the same name was decommissioned at the Qualor II depot in early 2364 in “Unification.” This may be the very same ship, but we will never know.

The “god” appearing in ST V may be related to the Cytherians of “The Nth Degree.” Both of which originate from the galactic core region and are advanced non-corporeal entities. The novelization of ST V also leads one to believe that the Great Barrier was constructed to contain the creature–a Cytherian renegade sentenced to life imprisonment? Reasoning along the same lines, I suppose it’s possible that the Redjack entity originating from 19th Century Earth in “Wolf In The Fold” might have been related to the entity calling itself Ronin in “Sub Rosa” which claimed to have been born on Earth in the 17th Century. Both were non-corporeal energy beings, one gaining sustenance from fear, the other apparently feeding on love. But if we keep grasping for straws here, we could also consider the “Day Of The Dove” entity as an offshoot. At least Ronin and Redjack both claimed to be from Earth and moved out into space as man did.

The Klingon homeworld in Tech Fandom is known as Kazh, the second planet orbiting the binary star Klingonki Kazara. The novels and FASA call it Klinzhai. Other sources, and the oldest of novels, call it Klingon, Klingonii, or just Kling. Some people have argued that just as our world has many names in many languages, so does the Klingon planet. Others claim that Klinzhai and Kazh are two different worlds. I’ve tried to keep the name consistent with the source material. Now with ST VI, the name Kronos has been offered and there is no concrete information to support this world as being the homeworld. Some believe that Kronos was the original homeworld in ST VI and the planet seen in TNG is another homeworld resettled. Quite frankly all I had managed to interpret from ST VI and the novelization was that Kronos was a major world in the empire whose atmosphere was damaged by the subspace shockwave. In any case, I’ve tried to keep the planet’s name consistent with the source for each entry.

FASA and certain novels maintain that the Klingons in the original series were “Human fusions.” Tech Fandom and Roddenberry reject this idea, claiming that there are different racial groups of Klingons. I like to think of the “Fusion” concept as an early U.F.P. explanation for the physical differences, no doubt originated by Dr. Emanuel Tagore, which was proven wrong [TOS #16]. The Deep Space Nine episode “Blood Oath” brings back three classic Klingons: Kor, Koloth, and Kang. They all, unfortunately, have ridged heads! Some fans accept that Klingons have always appeared this way and “Blood Oath” is the definitive answer. Not so. Fusion backers claim the head ridges become more pronounced with extreme age in the “Fusion” races, becoming dominant in Klingons’ upper years. The multi-race backers simply go along with the ridge development being tied into aging much like wrinkles and sagging skin in Human aging (which seemed almost absent in the 130+ years old trio!). The U.S.S. “Lynx” timeship blueprints place the Eugenics Wars only 218 years before the launching of this unique starship. It is probably another typo. Swapping the 8 and the 1, making 281 years, is more reasonable and fits the facts: the incorporation of a cloaking device and the modern Class 1-b hull. This places the launch/commissioning around 2275 and not 2212. The entries provided in the Chronology from these blueprints also assume that each mission was undertaken as outlined and that the “Lynx” project proceeded as planned. Now with the publication of Jackill’s new Star Fleet Reference Manual, however, we can more accurately place the “Lynx” around late 2274 at the latest since authorization for “Einstein” class timeslip vessels came in February of 2275 and represent a superior ship design placed into series production.

Few dates are established for the journey of “The Devil’s Heart” in the novel of the same name. I have tried my best to fit the history of this stone with what has already been established but the dates are rough approximations for the most part. The novel is set in 2368 shortly after “I, Borg” as the stardate and material suggests. T’Sara started digging for the Heart 10 years prior to this. Later we learn that Atropos had been selectively deserted “for centuries” prior to the stone being passed onto the Collector when Atropos had prospered for a century. This goes all the way back to “The First Empire” founded by Kessec which seems to clash with FASA material which states that the first emperor was Kahless (and this only holds water if we assume this is Not our Kahless The Unforgettable, of course). Considering that the first slave race was annexed in the 1990s and that Kahless died shortly afterwards (the novel states that the Klingons had the blood of a dozen races on their hands during this era) I approximated 2010: after the rise of Kagran to the throne. Yet for all we know, Kessec might have been Kahless if we were to throw out the FASA information. I suppose it all depends on how you define the First Empire and when it started. Dates prior to this when the Heart is in Romulan and Andorian hands are framed by FASA sources. They seem to fit reasonably well. The biggest problem is with Garamond who not only had the stone handed to him by Surak (around 60 B.C. which can’t be more than a few years off) but apparently departed with S’Task’s followers (150 A.D. ) and lived to a ripe old age on Romulus long before their rediscovery of space- flight. He was said to have lived to be nearly 300 years old (Earth years, Romulan years, Vulcan years. ). The voyage alone had to have lasted at least a century, and probably several. The only logical explanation is that Garamond lived to be about 300 not counting time dilation effects experienced at the near-light speeds of the Vulcan generation ships. This, plus the longevity which holders of the Heart seem to possess (barring accidents) accounts for his age.

Careful scrutiny of the chronological references within the most recent episodes of The Next Generation may reveal some missing time. Possibly as much as a Year or more is unaccounted for prior to the 7th season episodes (and DS9’s 2nd season)! In “Parallels” Captain Riker of the alternate timeline tells Worf that he was captain of the ship for 4 years, “ever since Captain Picard was killed with the incident with the Borg.” “The Best of Both Worlds” was set at the end of the 3rd season and at the beginning of the 4th–less than 3 and a half years prior to “Parallels” if we assume that 1,000 stardate units = 1 year. Also in the same episode, Data tells Worf that the Klingon married Deanna Troi exactly 2 years, 1 month, and 12 days ago as an outcome of Deanna caring for Worf following his back injury in “Ethics.” But “Ethics” was midway through the 5th season–just 1.8 years before “Parallels.” Maybe certain episodes occurred at different times in the multiverse of alternate timelines? Picard reminds Ensign Sito of the ‘daredevil stunt” pulled at the Academy 3 years ago in “Lower Decks.” He must be referring to Wesley’s forbidden maneuver in “The First Duty” as the same actress is playing the same character involved in the incident. But “The First Duty” is a 5th season episode and there’s less than 2 years between these two episodes! Yet in a 7th season episode such as “Thy Own Self” Deanna accurately recalled the correct span of time from when she had temporary command of the “Enterprise” (“Disaster”). Deep Space Nine only made matters worse. In the episode “Cardassians” Molly O’Brien is said to be 3 years old, but she was in- disputably born in “Disaster” which is a 5th season episode which would make her closer to 2 since the DS9 episode is set early in its 2nd season. Even worse is Peter David’s novel “The Siege,” set during DS9’s first season, with the subplot of Molly celebrating her 3rd birthday! And the next-to-last DS9 episode of the 2nd season “Tribunal” features Kira saying O’Brien’s daughter is 5 years old! The episode “Second Sight” kicks off with Commander Sisko’s personal log entry stating that it’s the 4th anniversary of the Wolf 359 battle where his wife Jennifer died. The time differential is a fraction over 3 years and well under 4 years whether you subtract the stardates or go by the episodes’ placements in each season. A later DS9 episode, “The Wire,” gives us more of the same. Garak claims he began to switch on his pain-relieving implant 2 years ago (say, late 2368) to help cope with the DS9 station environment. Yet, all of his accounts emphasize his discommendation as happening immediately before the Cardassian withdrawl of Bajor: about a year later in 2369. Maybe the DS9 personnel are sticking with the “local” Bajoran years with may be shorter than Standard years? Pretty wild and with all this data we could almost conclude with certainty that there’s a missing gap of time (much like with the classic series’ gap between “Court Martial” and “The Menagerie”) but other references (“Thy Own Self”) work against it as do the stardates which still pinpoint the general placement of the episodes within the broadcast seasons.

I understand that some people are confused over Federation Member Worlds and the number of worlds in the U.F.P. New civilizations accepted into the U.F.P. receive either Full or Associated member status. The large bulk of U.F.P. member (or allied) systems are Associated members and number in the thousands by the 2280s. Full members (which number under 30 by the year 2268) are given greater attention in the Chronology and their admission numbers are noted. Full-status member worlds have higher status than Associated member worlds in the U.F.P. and are represented on the Federation Counsil, and are regular contributors to the Federation Treasury etc.

UFC stands for United Federation Catalog. It is a survey number assigned to less well known systems, prior to receiving proper names (if ever). It was a product of Star Trek Maps to add consistency to the wide range of unnamed planetary systems. So the Treknical designation for Planet M-113 in “The Man Trap” would be UFC 113 (the M apparently indicating the sole Class M world in the system). Another variation on this is the duplicate Earth in “Bread and Circuses” logged as Planet 892 IV which would be UFC 892 using this nomenclature (IV indicating the fourth world orbiting this star), or later more commonly known by its common name of Magna Roma in both the novel “The Captain’s Honor” and Johnson’s The Worlds of the Federation.

After typing in loads of entries which make references to quadrants, I think they deserve a little explanation. There are at least two systems in use here which, to prevent confusion, I will call Fleet Quadrants and Gal- actic Quadrants. The former nomenclature was used in the original series, but better defined and made popular in technical fandom manuals, with its roots in Star Trek Maps which defined U.F.P. space. Federation space is divided into five major sections: 4 quadrants and a central sphere called Quadrant 0 (though not really a quadrant at all). This sphere is 90 parsecs in radius and is centered on the central navigational beacon (at coordinates 0,0,0). Quadrants 1 through 4 encircle the beacon and are subdivided into 8 Subquadrants (Quadrant 1 North & South, Quadrant 2 North & South etc.). They are further divided into Sectors. Star Trek Maps (and other Tech Fandom works) further state that in the timeframe of the original series, a “Constitution” class heavy cruiser was assigned a Subquadrant for patrol duty, though deviation from the Subquadrant is not uncommon due to special assignments–which the “Enterprise” is famous for! Below is a table for quick reference showing the original Fleet Quadrants assigned to the “Constitution” class as well as individual coordinate signs: The “Constitution,” “Excalibur,” “Hood,” “Lexington,” and “Defiant” have military or defense assignments. The “Republic” is used as a cadet train- ing vessel. With the loss of various “Constitution” class vessels, some switching around of patrol quadrants occurs. Starbases assigned to each quadrant actually border on the grids establishing each quadrant, so each ship is not restricted to the one base in the subquadrant–rarely the case with the vast distances these vessels patrol. Fleet Bases also are not the only support bases available for these starships but only imply control of the designated subquadrant.

The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine use Galactic Quadrant nomenclature which is based around splitting the entire galaxy up into Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta Quadrants. Alpha and Beta represent the lower half of the explored galaxy. Gamma and Delta represent the upper half of the galaxy, opposite the central core and are unexplored (until DS9’s wormhole was discovered, that is). From my understanding, the old and new systems relate to one another as follows: Alpha Quadrant is composed is Fleet Quadrants 1 and 2 and Beta Quadrant is composed of Fleet Quadrants 3 and 4. Fleet Quadrants and Galactic Quadrants use entirely different sector notation which I will not get into here (to save space!).

To avoid any confusion (and to toss out any ideas that I have been influenced by FASA in any way), I should say a thing or two about the “Transwarp Drive retrofit” mentioned in the very late 23rd Century. As early as the U.S.S. “Ingram” class blueprints, Transwarp was noted as being a failure. The TNG Technical Manual adds that certain engine components were integrated into later (standard warp drive) propulsion systems. Yet the Strategic Design Group’s Starfleet Dynamics, NCC-1701-A Deck Plans, and especially Starfleet Prototype state that Transwarp had not failed and existing ships would be retrofitted with the new drive system. Originally described as utilizing the wormhole effect (ST-TMP) to gain an extra exponent velocity increase (Wf^4) in the Officers Requirements and Starfleet Dynamics manuals, the much more recent Starfleet Prototype manual states that the Transwarp Drive Retrofit involved the simple matter of fine-tuning the intermix and the installation of energy polarizers inside of the nacelles. This is a radical departure from the original Transwarp concept (by the same authors no less) and it is not too far fetched a notion to assume that post-ST III references to “Transwarp” are more in line with an offshoot of the original failed Transwarp drive–yet are erroneously called Transwarp due to the many support systems salvaged from the original Transwarp Drive Project. The Prototype manual even goes on to describe the resulting warp field as having a dynamic rippling texture–not unlike the drive field produced by TNG’s “Galaxy” class starship. Certainly the nacelles on the “Excelsior” class ships in service in TNG’s time are no different externally and our brief peek at Mr. Scott’s engine room (and intermix shaft) in ST VI bears more than just a passing resemblance to the intermix core of the “Galaxy” class “Enterprise”–intermix flow and all. Simply the improved energy-generation systems in use on the original “Excelsior” were incorporated into the next generation of warp drive with the name Transwarp loosely tagged on in some instances. This explains the passing references to “Transwarp” in certain texts and blueprints (Joshua Class Command Cruiser General Plans).

A new addition is a log of “Enterprise” Fatalities to liven things up. All members of the “Enterprise” complement who die in the line of duty are noted, whenever possible. Not included are civilians and passengers not assigned to “Enterprise” duty. By the time the classic 5-year mission was completed, 94 crew members had met with violent death–according to Kirk in the ST-TMP novelization. Time permitting, I will continue this with NCC-1701-D and the novels.

Various 22nd Century spacecraft launch dates into the Ficus Sector come from the computer display on Picard’s desk in “Up The Long Ladder.” Only seen briefly, and not to be taken over-seriously, mission commander names like Roddenberry and Snodgrass are featured with numerous Buckaroo Banzai references. They don’t necessarily conflict with anything and do appear in the episode so I included them. Though one wonders why so many people were so eager to reach the Ficus Sector in old DY-series sublight spacecraft. DY-500-C and higher are not documented anywhere. I speculate that many of these old craft were refitted with warp drive (pylons and nacelles attached?), justifying their change in series registries.

All NCCs provided for Star Fleet ships are taken from Technical Fandom references and are very consistent and reliable, having a long history with their continuity stretching back to the Franz Joseph Designs’ days. FASA registries, on the other hand, are less so, but have been provided where there is no conflict or available NCC for the given ship. All ship construction histories come from the mainstream Treknical publications (mainly Ships of the Star Fleet) and are fairly recent additions to the Chronology since overall they’re quite trivial. You might be puzzled by the coverage of many ships per class. This is because these dates are pre-TNG and most ship construction facilities other than those in Sol system (particularly Earth-based) are stardated. Most stardates from the 23rd Century range from difficult to impossible to convert over to Earth dates, so most haven’t been included. The recent Star Trek Encyclopedia book by the Okudas reveals that they discount All of these old NCCs (namely “Constitution” class starships) apparently because of a wallchart in Commodore Stone’s office in “Court Martial” which contains a dozen or so NCCs (but No Names) of vessels. I go into more detail on this in my file on Starship Registries/NCCs, but the fact of the matter is that few fans have taken those numbers as representing “Constitution” class starships for the obvious reasons that “Constitution” class ships were only one of many starship classes in service at the time. The list takes the form of a table with 10 rows of numbers down the left column and horizontal bars next to each number. The table is titled “STAR SHIP STATUS” and below that is “% COMPLETED.”

Most numbers are in the 16xx range and it’s obvious that these are the vessels currently being serviced at Starbase 11 (probably ships smaller than the “Enterprise,” maybe with planetfall capability, undergoing routine maintenance at the starbase). It’s even more illogical to assume that all of these ships, if “Constitution” class, would be undergoing refitting at that one starbase at the same time. And there’s not a single name attached to a single registry number. The Franz Joseph publications set- tled the “Constitution” class NCC problem conclusively, in my opinion, and furthermore both the “Enterprise” blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual (both containing the NCCs) were approved and worked out with Gene Roddenberry. The out-of-synch NCCs of the “Constellation” and “Republic” were settled by later Technical Fandom reference works as shown in the Chronology. So one would assume that, classic series NCCs aside, the Okuda numbers for TNG ships are correct. Not quite, unfortunately. The prime reason for this is carelessness. The Okuda graphic screen reproduced in Volume 15 of ST:TNG Magazine on page 35 was actually used on a bridge monitor screen. It lists 15 starship names, their classes, and their NCCs. If have no problem with this list since these are Next Generation vessels, there are no conflicts with episodes, and it was actually used in the series. However, Okuda’s Chronology and Encyclopedia books aren’t 100% consistent. The U.S.S. “Trieste” matches in number but the Encyclopedia calls her a “Merced” class ship instead of a “Yosemite” class ship. The U.S.S. “Zhukov” is listed in these two reference works as having the registry NCC-26136. The graphic lists it as NCC-62136. I believe a screen graphic takes precedence over a repetetive typographical error carried from one book to another. What is particularly annoying about the Encyclopedia’s starship table is the number of conflicts between the numbers or the classes when compared to the book’s individual ship entries and/or episodes. We saw the “Crazy Horse” in a recent TNG episode and it was clearly “Excelsior” class–yet the “Encyclopedia” states she’s of the “Cheyenne” class (another new class we never heard of, just like the “Merced”). The “Saratoga” (of ST IV) is listed in the table as NCC- 1867 while the individual entry states NCC-1937 (Technical Fandom logs her as NCC-1892). I also have taken visual evidence over any of their entries. The U.S.S. “Bozeman” of “Cause And Effect” is seen with the registry NCC-1841) on her primary hull underside. The photos of the vessel in the Okuda books show her topside (never fully seen on the screen) as reading NCC-1941. 1841 is also more logical in keeping with the series of recorded contract numbers. The number of the “Yamato” clashed in the two episodes “Where Silence Has Lease” (NCC-1305-E) and “Contagion” (NCC-71807). I simply assume that she was assigned a new number between the two episodes rather than dismissing one and accepting the other. Finally there is the case of the class ship of the “Constellation” class star cruisers. The chapter titled “In The Design Tank” of Starfleet Prototype shows us the prototype U.S.S. “Constellation” tentatively numbered NCC-1017 (logical considering that was undisputably the number of the “Constitution” class vessel lost in “The Doomsday Machine”). I suppose a letter prefix might have been added after she entered service or the number may have been altered. In any case, the Encyclopedia gives her the unlikely registry NCC-1974. We get a good close-up of Picard’s desk model in “Who Watches The Watches” and it clearly carries the egistry NCC-7100 (and curiously no name), yet his “Stargazer” was undisputably NCC-2893 in “The Battle.” I conjecture that NCC-7100 was therefore the actual registry number of the U.S.S. “Constellation,” being the class ship. Jackill’s new ship manual goes with 1974 for the class ship authorized in 2285. I can only guess that a new NCC was assigned to her–perhaps even several times as the prototype evolved.

Warp speeds expressed in the Chronology through the 23rd Century are based on the formula V = Wf^3 (Velocity relative to lightspeed being equal to the warp factor cubed). This also holds up for 22nd and 21st Century warp eferences, even though the warp scale wasn’t established until the 2160s. At an undetermined point in the 24th Century, the warp scale was changed to V = Wf^(10/3) which holds up until warp factor 9, afterwards going asymptotic towards infinite speed at warp 10 (or so the TNG Technical Manual says). All 24th Century speed references in the Chronology employ are based on this new scale. Note that a third, intermediate, warp scale apparently saw short term use circa 2275 as defined in Jackill’s Star Fleet Reference Manuals. It combines elements of both scales: an unreachable Warp 10 infinite speed asymptote above warp 9 while maintaining the “traditional” cubed warp for under-warp 9 speed calculations. Jackill is the only person to use this new scale so I’m concluding that it was short- lived and phased out for whatever reason. All warp speed references from Jackill’s have been converted to the classic V = Wf^3 system, with no asymptotic curve. This is hardly a problem since almost all maximum warp speeds from the Reference Manuals are warp 9 or under. Whenever a refer- ence is made to a ship’s “warp capacity” the maximum (top) speed for that class is given. This is somewhat ambiguous at times as it can vary from reference to reference and is sometimes confused with emergency speed or flank speed. “All Good Things. ” includes two references to Warp 13 speeds, either suggesting a revised warp scale extending beyond the unreachable warp factor 10 or else yet another TNG Technical Manual contra- diction.

Certain references I’ve taken from “The Best of Trek” books. This series of books is generally a poor source of accurate information but is the only source of info on such things as ‘The Fall of the Federation’: a look at Trek’s distant future, and ‘The Rise of the Feder- ation Part I: The Eugenics Wars.’ It’s sad that after the first few books in this series they practically went all-out FASA, adapting the Space- flight Chronology books as “official” and bragging about dates in Star Trek Maps being wrong, and even concluding that the date of 2283 in ST II was a Romulan date. Jeffrey W. Mason’s “chronologies” in TBoT #6 and #10 are plagiarized from SFC with the latter consisting of a few old novels chucked-in, supposedly filling in the adventures between the first two films. Pity that he never read the novels, just judged them by their cover art–as most were written in the 70s and clearly are set during the original five-year mission! Well, I suppose from his viewpoint that the “Enterprise” officers were all demoted to their old series ranks, kept their old yellow/blue/red uniforms.

Dates and information beyond 2270 A.D. are mostly drawn from works which have given us brief peaks into the future of The Next Generation. “Firstborn,” “Imzadi,” and “All Good Things. ” are three such examples. The problem with these is that events in each one are questionable since they represent alternate future timelines. The future of Star Trek is not accurately represented by any one of them–at least as far as “our” Trek Universe is concerned–and the writers of future episodes won’t be restricted to follow them. Such is the case with future-to-past time travel adventures, especially those which imply there will be changes in the future time stream.

Throughout the Chronology, I’ve spelled Star Fleet as two words. Most early novels did as well as the classic Franz Joseph works. It’s still split into two words in most Tech Fandom publications today, although “officially” it’s Starfleet as used in TNG, the films, and even in the original series (‘For Eyes of Starfleet Command Only’ from “The Menagerie”). “Stardate” went in reverse: starting off as two words in “Court Martial” and going to one word–and sporatically back and forth in the films! As touched upon earlier, the proper way to spell certain Next Generation alien names and worlds can be tough to acertain. There are conflicts between the spellings in Paramount press releases, the Okuda books, the trading cards, TNG/DS9 mag- azines, novelizations, and even the closed-captioning in the airing of episodes. Typographical errors (also discussed previously) can end up getting ported over from one book to the next: “NooniEn” and “BrAttain” are two popular examples (though the latter actually being a typo is a matter of perspective). A good one to pay attention to is the Klingon sword pronounced as “Bat-Leck.” It is actually a translation of “Sword of Honor” in Okrand’s Klingonese. Literally this would be spelled (using Okrand’s Klingon letter designations) as “batlh’etlh.” The updated Klingon Dictionary spells it “betleH.” Okuda transposed a couple letters and it ended up as “bat’telh” (“Bat-Telk”?) and it’s already appeared in no less than 3 books like this since–at least one’s a novel and I’m sure there are more to come.

Documentation

Everyone has requested where certain entries and dates came from, so I’ve tagged on codes in brackets. For the original series and animated series episodes, I’ve used the call letters developed by Bjo Trimble for her classic Concordance. Star Trek movies have been designated ST-TMP, ST II, ST III, ST IV, ST V, and ST VI. Note that these may also refer to information taken from the novelizations and not necessarily the movies themselves. The Next Generation episodes presented a problem. Rather than trying to contrive my own call letters for each episode, I simply used the production numbers. TNG 101/102 is “Encounter at Farpoint” (parts 1 & 2), TNG 103 is “The Naked Now” etc. Consult Larry Nemecek’s ST:TNG Companion for reference. I didn’t bother to use Nemecek’s call letters developed for each TNG episode since they only run through Season 5 and would undoubtedly be confused with Trimble’s old episode codes. The Pocket Books novels conveniently use numbers to identify them. Thus: TOS #54 is the Star Trek novel “A Flag Full of Stars” from The Original Series, and TNG #16 is The Next Generation novel “Contamination.” David Gerrold’s novelization of “Encounter at Farpoint” is designated TNG #0. The # sign is used to differentiate between TNG novels and live- action episodes. Also, TNG episodes are 3 digits long and TNG novels are 1 or two digits. Assuming the Eugenics Wars don’t disrupt Pocket Books’ publishing schedule, TNG novels won’t reach the 3-digit mark until around 2004 A.D. With Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s coming are novels. DSN #1 represents the novelization of the pilot episode.

The so-called “giant novels” created a problem. I simply listed them in publication order and numbered them:

Note that all hardcover releases inevitably become “giant novels” when reprinted in paperback.

An even bigger problem were the original novels by Bantam Books. So I did the same, preceding each number by ON (Old Novel):

The Alan Dean Foster “Log Series” of novelizations of the animated series has added much background to the Trek universe. Any info taken from them is indicated by Log n, where n is from 1 to 10. Similarly, the James Blish novelizations of the original series are indicated by ST n, where n is from 1 to 12. The ADF “Log Series” was recently reprinted. The James Blish series was also reprinted, but all adaptations were re-edited into a 3-volume collection, rearranged into production order. These novelizations may also be found in hardcover format in the “Star Trek Reader” series, common in libraries.

Tech Fandom and numberless publications posed the biggest problem, and the only solution was to invent call letters.

In closing, let me add that I am NOT responsible for CREATING this chronology. These dates are COMPILED from numerous sources, spanning over 15 years, from Star Trek Tech Fandom which has been responsible for much of the detailed technical background of the Star Trek Universe. The material from the novels was simply integrated in based upon references given. As for the chronology itself, here are some of my main sources, a bibliography:

The Starfleet Handbook (1975): Chuck Graham’s 2-page Star Trek Timeline which set the trend for future Trek historians. Not very accurate for certain dates, but overall forming the layout of Trek History.

Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual: featuring an impressive Medical Timeline of dates and a detailed listing of elements and their dates and places of discovery.

U.S.S. “Enterprise” Officer’s Manual: the first book to accurately nail down the starting and ending dates of the 5 year mission. The manual is also a treasure chest of birthdates and service records of the “Enterprise” officers, and also the first occurance of the launch date of the “Constitution” class heavy cruiser (c. 2217), nicely jibing with the material in The Making of Star Trek and Star Trek Log 7. As a side note, a Revised U.S.S. “Enterprise” Officer’s Manual was later published–drastically changed with dates ALTERED to fit into the faulty FASA roleplaying/Spaceflight Chronology universe. MUCH was removed and some pages were added, with considerable contributions from Shane Johnson, a die-hard FASA supporter who has his own conflicting tech drawings. The Revised manual should be ignored date-wise at the very least. It’s also not to be confused with the ST:TNG Officers Manual or any other Officers Manuals which are common in Trek role-playing games.

Star Trek Maps: once again adding to what went before it, this beautiful package features the U.F.P. mapped out in 4 colorful maps based upon actual star charts PACKED with details. The 29 U.F.P. worlds’ admission dates into the Federation are given here along with the founding/contact dates in an Introduction to Navigation Manual, which also provides insight into the chronological development of warp drive.

U.S.S. “Avenger” Class Blueprints: mostly background information and dates about how the “Reliant” of ST II evolved in an excellent set of blueprints. However, the ship construction dates conflict with those in Ships of the Star Fleet and other references.

Starship Design: a 23rd Century Naval publication showing numerous ships and their backgrounds.

Line Officer Requirements: a 3-Volume set (Volumes I & II plus a supplement). The least impressive of all manuals, artwork-wise, but easily surpassing FASA works in workmanship and research (if overlooking numerous typographical errors). Numerous historical dates are given. Portions of these manuals were reprinted as the Starfleet Dynamics manual, with some updating but sadly plenty of typos still.

Federation Reference Series: 6 issues forming an updated tech manual which includes THE best guide to Star Fleet uniforms ever. The actual launch dates of classic Star Fleet ship classes are given along with their status codes (based upon the Subquadrant info in Star Trek Maps). Dates of uniform issuing, the Klingon War etc. The first manual to go by the 20 year gap (ST-TMP/ST II) assumption. This series may have recently been reprinted as Starship Command Pack Supplement.

U.S.S. “Ingram/Excelsior” Blueprints: nice prints of an upgraded U.S.S. “Excelsior” offshoot. Acknowledges the 20 year gap (as does all publications from here on) and supplies dates concerning the transwarp development and the date of the most recent films (2287).

U.S.S. “Enterprise” Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints: 3 giant sheets packed with info, expanding upon Federation Reference Series, giving the launch and commissioning dates of heavy cruisers and how the U.S.S. “Enterprise” was uprated over the decades to match the latest heavy cruiser specs.

Ships of the Star Fleet (Vol. I): an expansion of Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints but with emphasis upon their current status. Not only featuring heavy cruisers but also the Belknap strike cruiser and rich backgrounds of each class.

Ships of the Star Fleet (Vol. II): like the above, but covering only the new “Akyazi” group of perimeter action starships.

Starfleet Prototype: a companion manual to the Ships of the Fleet manuals, written by the same people behind the Officers Requirements Manuals but of much higher quality, almost equal to Ships of the Fleet. Although a welcome followup, the manual contains several inconsistencies to be avoided, including the successful development of Transwarp drive and a brief history of the “Enterprise” class on page 8.

Oh, one more thing. This Star Trek Chronology is copyright 1994 by ‘James Dixon’. It’s not to be sold or altered in any way but you’re free to distribute it around all you’d like. In fact, I’m hoping that you do. Leave the altering to me. I’m sure that by the time you read this file my original will be greatly expanded. This originally started off as a hobby for my own private use and I had no intention of uploading it. Now it’s grown far beyond that–with each new edition coming out each year!

Special thanks go to “Captain” Lyndon Brunel for technical support and additional research, Harold Stein for distribution, and of course, my deepest thanks to those who’ve contributed to and expanded upon Technical Fandom. Fans who Don’t interpret the Star Trek Universe as being limited to just the live-action episodes and films.

One More thing (II), if there are any “Trekkesses” reading this. I’m 100% single and would certainly appreciate meeting a female Trek fan who might be interested in a potential relationship. You can contact me on the Rime and WildNet computer networks. Female Trek fans are Rare in this neck of the woods for some reason, and what’s a Trekker in pon farr to do? I can only bond with members of my own species.

Also checkout my other text files (available at the same place you got this one I’d assume): Star System Coordinates
Enterprise Construction History
Starbase Guide
Bonhomme Richard Vs. Achernar Class
Treknical Acronyms And Abbreviations
Starship Classifications
Starship Registries/NCCs
Enterprise Personnel

Technical design, graphic design, interactive features, HTML & CGI programming by Andrew Tong. || All materials Copyright © 1987-1995 by their respective authors. || Document created: May 28, 1994 || Last Modified: November 09, 2010

Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology book, Advanced Sales Estate Liquidation Auction #92, K-BID

Closed

High Bidder: #158350

Current Bid:

$2.00

Your Max Bid: 0.00

Next Required Bid: $3.00

Inspection:

Auction Closing:

Removal:

Bidding Increments:

Bid Range Minimum Increment
$0.01 $75.00 $1.00
$75.01 $150.00 $5.00
$150.01 $250.00 $10.00
$250.01 $500.00 $25.00
$500.01 $1,000.00 $50.00
$1,000.01 $5,000.00 $75.00
$5,000.01 $50,000.00 $100.00
$50,000.01 $75,000.00 $250.00
$75,000.01 $100,000.00 $500.00
$100,000.01 $2,500,000.00 $1,000.00

This auction is contracted and managed by: Advanced Sales

This auction is contracted and managed by Advanced Sales, and they are the Dealer of Record for titled and registered items in this sale, DLR24913. This affiliate accepts Cash, Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or Cashier’s checks. Credit Cards are accepted up to $5,000.00. By placing a bid on this auction you are agreeing to the auction specific terms listed below in addition to K-BID user terms. For auctions contracted and managed by an Independent Affiliate, K-BID Online, Inc. is acting as a venue only and will not be involved in any disputes or issues regarding this auction. Everything is sold “as is, where is” with no guarantees or warranties. You are responsible for inspecting items prior to purchase. There is a 13% BUYERS PREMIUM (13% BP) on this auction. All NON-Credit/Debit Card payments MADE IN-FULL (invoiced amount) will receive a 3% Reduction in BUYERS PREMIUM (10% BP). Applicable Minnesota Sales Tax will be collected. At the close of the auction active items will remain open until no bids have been received for three minutes. IMPORTANT NOTE: If the high bidder of an item does NOT acknowledge the purchase, K-BID systems reserves the right to determine how and to whom it will be resold. If we determine that the winning bid was not a bona fide bidder, the item WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY go to the next second-highest bid.

This auction is contracted and managed by an independent affiliate. By placing a bid on this auction, you are agreeing to the auction specific terms listed on this page in additions to the K-BID user terms and agreements.

K-BID Online, Inc. (K-BID) is responsible for maintaining the K-BID.com website. K-BID.com serves as the venue used by independent auction companies (Affiliates) to present their online auctions to bidders.

K-BID’s role in the auctions listed on K-BID.com is limited to providing the venue for affiliate auctions. Affiliates are not employees, agents, representatives or partners of K-BID Online, Inc. K-BID’s knowledge about individual auctions and individual auction transactions is limited to the information appearing on the website.

By placing a bid on K-BID.com, bidders are verifying they are at least 18 years old and acknowledging they understand and will comply with both the K-BID.com website terms and the auction specific terms. Bidders MUST NOT share their password or account information with anyone. Bidders are responsible for bids placed on their account.

Inspection dates/times are available for every auction. Bidders are strongly encouraged to inspect prior to placing bids. Removal day is not inspection day. When an auction ends, and the winning bidder invoice appears on the bidder’s dashboard, the bidder is obligated to honor their bid(s).

Every auction item is sold “as is, where is” with no guarantees or warranties. You are responsible for inspecting items prior to purchase.

Bidders are responsible for knowing and complying with auction terms. Failure to comply with removal terms may result in bidding privileges being disabled. Once a bid is placed it cannot be retracted.

Sellers and their agents are prohibited from bidding on their own assets.

Items with a reserve will not be sold unless the reserve price has been met.

At the close of the auction, active items will remain open until no bids have been received for three minutes.

Applicable sales tax will be collected by the affiliate managing the auction.

In the event that bidding rights are terminated due to no-show invoices, bidders MAY be reinstated at the discretion of K-BID only after a penalty fee of 20% of the unpaid invoice(s) and a reinstatement fee of $25.00 has been paid to K-BID and a scanned copy of your driver’s license emailed to us. INVOICED ITEMS WILL NOT BE AWARDED. The payment is punitive and meant to deter no-shows. Duplicate bidder accounts will be deactivated when they are determined to exist. If possible and at our discretion, K-BID reserves the right to delete any bid we believe has been placed by a suspect bidder. Any registration that shows up on our fraud detection system may be placed on hold and bids removed until the user is verified. K-BID Online, Inc reserves the right to disallow anybody from bidding on its website. Cases of obvious bidding with no intent to redeem will be referred to appropriate legal authorities.

Affiliates may lower a lot reserve at any time before or after an auction closes. If the reserve is lowered while the auction is in progress, the applicable reserve message will appear below the Next Required Bid information (Reserve Not Met or Reserve Has Been Met); the asset will sell to the high bidder if the lowered reserve amount is met. If the reserve is lowered after the auction closes, the highest bidder at auction close will receive a winning bidder invoice.

Once an auction begins its closing process, outbid notifications will not be sent.

Once a bid is placed it cannot be retracted.

From Spaceflight Insider: NASA teaming up with commercial companies for return to the Moon, sciencesprings

sciencesprings

Richard Mitnick

Follow Blog via Email

Origin Story

The Origin Story for the Blog

I am telling the reader this story in the hope of impelling him or her to find their own story and start a wordpress blog. We all have a story. Find yours.

The oldest post I can find for this blog is “From FermiLab Today: Tevatron is Done” at the End of 2011 (but I am not sure if that is the first post, just the oldest I could find.

But the origin goes back to 1985, Timothy Ferris Creation of the Universe PBS, November 20, 1985, available in different videos on YouTube; The Atom Smashers, PBS Frontline November 25, 2008, centered at Fermilab, not available on Youtube; and The Big Bang Machine, with Sir Brian Cox of U Manchester and the ATLAS project at the LHC at CERN.

In 1993, our idiot Congress pulled the plug on The Superconducting Super Collider, a particle accelerator complex under construction in the vicinity of Waxahachie, Texas. Its planned ring circumference was 87.1 kilometers (54.1 mi) with an energy of 20 Tev per proton and was set to be the world’s largest and most energetic. It would have greatly surpassed the current record held by the Large Hadron Collider, which has ring circumference 27 km (17 mi) and energy of 13 TeV per proton.

If this project had been built, most probably the Higgs Boson would have been found there, not in Europe, to which the USA had ceded High Energy Physics.

The project’s director was Roy Schwitters, a physicist at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Louis Ianniello served as its first Project Director for 15 months. The project was cancelled in 1993 due to budget problems, cited as having no immediate economic value.

Some where I learned that fully 30% of the scientists working at CERN were U.S. citizens. The ATLAS project had 600 people at Brookhaven Lab. The CMS project had 1,000 people at Fermilab. There were many scientists which had “gigs” at both sites.

I started digging around in CERN web sites and found Quantum Diaries, a “blog” from before there were blogs, where different scientists could post articles. I commented on a few and my dismay about the lack of U.S recognition in the press.

Those guys at Quantum Diaries, gave me access to the Greybook, the list of every institution in the world in several tiers processing data for CERN. I collected all of their social media and was off to the races for CERN and other great basic and applied science.

Since then I have expanded the list of sites that I cover from all over the world. I build html templates for each institution I cover and plop their articles, complete with all attributions and graphics into the template and post it to the blog. I am not a scientist and I am not qualified to write anything or answer scientific questions. The only thing I might add is graphics where the origin graphics are weak. I have a monster graphics library. Any science questions are referred back to the writer who is told to seek his answer from the real scientists in the project.

The blog has to date 900 followers on the blog, its Facebook Fan page and Twitter.I get my material from email lists and RSS feeds. I do not use Facebook or Twitter, which are both loaded with garbage in the physical sciences.

That is my Origin Story

richardmitnick 11:33 am on August 7, 2019 Permalink Reply
Tags: “NASA teaming up with commercial companies for return to the Moon”, Spaceflight Insider ( 25 )

From Spaceflight Insider: “NASA teaming up with commercial companies for return to the Moon”

August 5th, 2019
Laurel Kornfeld


NASA has issued a request for proposals for the space agency’s new Artemis Program. Image Credit: NASA

To achieve the goal of returning humans to the Moon by 2024, NASA announced it is teaming up with commercial companies to develop new technologies for landing on and taking off from the lunar surface.

On July 30, the space agency issued a public call for commercial companies to build both small and medium-sized lunar landers and rovers capable of bringing science experiments and power sources to the Moon as part of its new Artemis program. The project seeks to land astronauts, including one or more women, on various regions of the lunar surface, including its South Pole. Nine companies have already signed on to a program known as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program.

“Our commercial partners are helping us to advance lunar science in an unprecedented way. As we enable broader opportunities for for commercial providers through CLPS, we’re enlarging our capabilities to do novel measurements and technology development scientists have long wanted to do at the Moon,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.

In October 2018, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate issued an Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity (ACO) seeking private companies to contract with on the many components of future space missions. These include advanced communication, navigation, and avionics; advanced materials for rockets and spacecraft; entry, descent, and landing technologies; in-space manufacturing and assembly of equipment; power systems, including solar cells; propulsion, and other exploration technologies.

Through a public-private collaboration program known as Swamp Works, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is partnering with both SpaceX and Lockheed Martin to make Artemis a reality. With SpaceX, KSC hopes to develop the technology needed to vertically land rockets on the Moon. This could be difficult because of potential interaction between plumes generated by rocket engines and lunar soil, known as regolith.

“Missions to the lunar surface present challenges from rocket engine plume effects as they interact with the regolith surface to eject high-velocity dust particles and rocks,” explained Rob Mueller, senior technologist for advanced projects development at KSC‘s Exploration Research and Technology Programs. “To mitigate the damage to equipment during landings and takeoff, we’ll work on technologies such as launch and landing pads, and blast protection berms or walls to make operations on the Moon sustainable and safe for NASA and all of our partners. These types of risk mitigations become exponentially more important as landers increase in size, and Kennedy‘s Swamp Works is at the forefront of developing new technological solutions for this based on related computer modeling tools and testing.”

NASA hopes that in working together, KSC‘s Swamp Works program and SpaceX can develop technologies capable of landing astronauts on both the Moon and Mars, Mueller emphasized.

KSC‘s partnership with Lockheed Martin seeks to grow plants in space autonomously with the help of robotics. If successful, this could function as a food source for astronauts on future deep space missions. Bryan Onate, chief of KSC‘s Life Sciences and Utilization Office, said the public-private partnership already has a team of engineers, scientists, interns, and other contractors working on the project.

“Exploring beyond low-Earth orbit will require long-duration stays on the Moon and eventually Mars, meaning we are focused on providing plant growth systems that will supplement and sustain the crews’ nutrition and implement autonomous operations as required. So we are excited to be taking part in this collaborative opportunity, which will develop new technology to enable future missions.”

NASA hopes to reduce both the cost and the amount of time needed to develop new technologies for Artemis and for subsequent long-term crewed space missions by working together with commercial spaceflight companies.

“The Artemis program integrates our science and exploration goals, and we are using our commercial partners to help meet those goals with an innovative and cost-effective approach. The ability to land heavier payloads on the lunar surface is a service that NASA has a key interest in. We’re looking forward to innovative proposals and possibly more partners to advance what we’ve already started with CLPS,” emphasized Steve Clarke, NASA deputy associate administrator for exploration in science.

Thirteen commercial companies have been contracted with through the ACO for a total of 19 public-private partnerships.

Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

SpaceFlight Insider reports on events taking place within the aerospace industry. With our team of writers and photographers, we provide an “insider’s” view of all aspects of space exploration efforts. We go so far as to take their questions directly to those officials within NASA and other space-related organizations. At SpaceFlight Insider, the “insider” is not anyone on our team, but our readers.

Our team has decades of experience covering the space program and we are focused on providing you with the absolute latest on all things space. SpaceFlight Insider is comprised of individuals located in the United States, Europe, South America and Canada. Most of them are volunteers, hard-working space enthusiasts who freely give their time to share the thrill of space exploration with the world.

Astronaut Will Test Drive Rover From Space, PISCES Hawaii

Spaceflightinsider partners

Multiple partner nations involved on the International Space Station are developing robots in space.

Photo Credit: Jacques van Oene / SpaceFlight Insider

On Monday, Sept. 7, Danish European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Andreas Mogensen, for the first time, performed a groundbreaking space experiment called Interact. Interact was developed by ESA/ESTEC Telerobotics & Haptics Lab in close collaboration with the Technical University of Delft’s Robotics Institute.

ESA’s Telerobotics & Haptics Lab consists of a small, but highly dynamic, team of engineers and engineering academics. Led by Dr. André Schiele, Associate Professor at the Delft University of Technology.

Andreas Mogensen was launched aboard the Soyuz TMA-18M last Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2015. He and fellow Expedition 45 crewmates Aidyn Aimbetov and Sergei Volkov (of Roscosmos) docked Friday morning with the Space Station.

During his short-duration mission, Mogensen will take the controls of the Interact rover from his position on the ISS in real time with force feedback.

If everything goes as planned, the Interact rover will drive around the grounds of ESA’s ESTEC technical centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

Mogensen will test the Interact rover three times from his position on the orbiting laboratory next Monday. The first test is set to begin at 14:00 CET (13:00 GMT) and will be a science run on stiffness discrimination. It should last for approximately 30 minutes.

Then, at around 16:00 CET, Andreas will control the rover and perform a sub-millimeter precision task; this test is scheduled to last for about one hour. The final task planned for Monday will start around 18:50 CET and Mogensen will then try to do a peg-in-hole task; this test is also scheduled for about one hour.

On board the ISS, Andreas Mogensen will re-use equipment from the previous Telerobotics & Haptics Lab experiments called Haptics-1 and Haptics-2. For these experiments, a tablet PC and a small force-reflective joystick were flown to the ISS with the goal of evaluating human haptic perception in space.

Meanwhile, on the ground, the Interact rover has two KUKA lightweight robotic arms on the front allowing the operator (in this case an astronaut) to perform very precise manipulation tasks. The arms can be soft-controlled to interact safely with humans or delicate structures. The arms are equipped with highly sensitive force sensors and can flex and adapt in a similar manner to human arms during remote control. This allows tight-coupling of those arms to an operator located far away by means of force-transmitting interfaces.

This interaction could make remote operations possible to take place across very long distances with the finest amount of force feedback to the operator despite the communication time delay.

The Interact rover also has four real-time streaming cameras that Mogensen can use from the ISS. A head pan-tilt camera should provide him with a general contextual overview of the situation during driving and exploration of the environment. A tool camera mounted on the robotic right arm for vision during precise tool manipulation. And two hazard cameras (front and back) to view the proximity area of the rover during driving.

A complicating factor is the signals between the astronaut and the Interact rover; they must travel via a dedicated and highly complex network of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The signals will travel from the ISS via NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to ground facilities in the U.S. From there, they cross the Atlantic Ocean to the ESTEC facilities in Noordwijk, in the Netherlands.

Forces between the robot and its environment, as well as video and status data, travel back to the graphical user interface and the haptic joystick Mogensen is using aboard the station. In this round-trip, all signals cover a distance of nearly 55,923 miles (90,000 km). The resulting round trip time delay is just one second in length.

Russian Space Web update log

Spaceflightinsider partners

RussianSpaceWeb.com news and updates

Get instant alerts about new features and updates on RussianSpaceWeb.com via Twitter. Currently, a 1-year subscription to more than 100 articles within the Insider Content section can be obtained via PayPal or a credit card payment of $50. After completion of the transaction, we will send you personalized access information:

2020 March 3: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 110): RD-862

2020 February 27: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 109): Manufacturing PTK Orel

2020 February 17: New page: Angosat-2

2020 February 11: Update: PTK Orel test flight manifest

2020 February 5: Update: Soyuz MS-13 landing

2020 January 23: New page: Meridian-M2 (19L)

2020 January 13: Update: N1 No. 3L launch: Rollout photo-collage

2020 January 8: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 102): ExoMars project in 2020

2020 January 6: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 101): MLM Nauka module in 2020

2020 January 1-2: Updates: The US-A/-P project: info, imagery

2019 December 28: Update: 2019 year-end results

2019 December 26: New page: Gonets-M Group 15

2019 December 23: Update: Elektro-L3 launch info

2019 December 10: New page: GLONASS-M-59; update: Cis-lunar Gateway (2019 maximum configuration)

2019 December 5: New page: Progress MS-13

2019 November 26: Update: Kosmos-2542: Info, imagery

2019 November 21: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 97): PTK Orel ground test program

2019 November 15: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 95): ISS operations in 2020

2019 November 5: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 92): ESPRIT module in 2019

2019 November 4: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 91): RD-180MV engine

2019 October 30: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 90): Angara project in 2019

2019 October 24: Updates (INSIDER CONTENT): MLM Nauka module in 2019 (info, imagery); The 2020 ISS flight manifest (multiple updates)

2019 October 22: New page (INSIDER CONTENT No. 88): I-Hab module in 2019

2019 October 19: Update: Angara pad in Vostochny

2019 October 3: Updates: Soyuz MS-12, Soyuz landing (info, imagery)

2019 October 2: Update: Soyuz MS-12, landing details

2019 September 24: New page: Soyuz MS-15

2019 September 12: Updates: (INSIDER CONTENT): PPE in 2019, HALO modules (visualizations)

2019 September 10: Update: Soyuz MS-14

2019 September 9: Update: Soyuz MS series

2019 August 31: Update: Soyuz MS-14 (robot operations)

2019 August 30: Update (INSIDER CONTENT): Cis-lunar Gateway project (info, imagery); New page: Geo-IK-2-3

2019 August 27: Updates: RD-861K (Tsyklon-4’s third stage test firing); Russia in the 2010s (TEM tug visual)

2019 August 26: Updates: Soyuz MS-13 (redocking); Angara pad in Vostochny in 2019 (construction progress)

2019 August 21: New page: Soyuz MS-14

2019 August 15: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 81): Robot Fedor

2019 August 8: New page: Zond-7; update: 19K project (visual)

2019 August 7: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 79): RBKA satellite

2019 August 5: New page: Blagovest-14L

2019 July 30: New page: Meridian (8)

2019 July 28: Update: 19K complex – new visualizations

2019 July 23: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 76): Luna-29 mission in 2019

2019 July 20: New page: Soyuz MS-13

2019 July 17: New page: 19K vehicle for the L3 project

2019 July 4: New page: Meteor M2-2; New pages/Meteor family content split: Meteor-M series, Meteor-M1

2019 July 3: Update: N1 No. 5L launch

2019 June 24: Update: Yamal-601 orbit arrival

2019 June 22: Updates: Angara production; Angara-5V

2019 June 21: New page: Launch of Spektr-RG (scrubbed)

2019 June 18: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 71): Revival of Spektr-RG

2019 June 17: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 70): Original Spektr-RG

2019 June 14: Update: Vladimir Chelomei

2019 June 10: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 69): RD-8 engine

2019 June 3: Update: Angara pad in Vostochny

2019 May 30: New page: Yamal-601

2019 May 28: New page: VKD-46 spacewalk aboard ISS

2019 May 26: New page: GLONASS-M58 mission

2019 May 23: New page: 21K tanker

2019 May 9: New page: ART-XC telescope for Spektr-RG

2019 May 6: Update: TKS spacecraft

2019 April 25: Update: (INSIDER CONTENT): PTK Federatsiya project in 2019 (production details)

2019 April 16: Updates: LK lander; LVPK

2019 March 31: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 61): MLM in 2019

2019 March 18: New page: Soyuz rocket family in 2019

2019 March 14: New page: Soyuz MS-12

2019 Feb. 19: Update: (INSIDER CONTENT) Spektr-RG in 2019 (launch dates selection details)

2019 Feb. 5: Updates (info, imagery): Spektr-RG in 2018, Spektr-RG in 2017

2019 Jan. 31: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 52) Soyuz-7 launcher

2019 Jan. 28: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 51) Ryvok concept

2019 Jan. 24: New page: Angara pad in Vostochny in 2019

2019 Jan. 21: New page: Soyuz-4, Soyuz-5 home page

2019 Jan. 20: New page: 7K-L1 No. 13L

2019 Jan. 18: New page: Soyuz-5 landing

2019 Jan. 17: New page: Soyuz-4 landing

2018 Dec. 30: Update: 2018 in space

2018 Dec. 19: Update: Soyuz MS-09 landing

2018 Dec. 14: New page: (INSIDER CONTENT No. 46) KSLV-2

2018 Dec. 5: Update: Proton operations in 2019

2018 Dec. 2: New page: Soyuz MS-11

2018 Nov. 20: New page: Launch of Zarya FGB module; Update (info, imagery): Zarya FGB module

2018 Nov. 16: New page: Progress MS-10

2018 Nov. 13: New page: Zond-6 mission

2018 Nov. 6: New page: Soyuz ST-B launch with MetOp-C

2018 Nov. 3: New page: GLONASS M-57 mission

2018 Oct. 26 – Nov. 5: New section: Soyuz-2, -3 mission

2018 Oct. 24: New page: Fourth launch of Lotos-S1

2018 Oct. 16: New page: Proton operations in 2019

2018 Oct. 10: New page: Soyuz MS-10

2018 Oct. 5: New page: Elektro-L3 satellite; Updates, content split: Elektro-L series, Elektro L1

2018 Sept. 17: New page: Zond-5 mission

2018 Sept. 12: New page: A hole aboard Soyuz MS-09

2018 Sept. 7: Update: ESPRIT module for the cis-lunar station (info, imagery)

2018 Aug. 17: New pages: GIRD-09 rocket, GIRD-09 engine

2018 Aug. 3: New page: Origins of space flight

2018 July 31 – Aug. 1: Updates: Proton operations in 2018

2018 July 30: Update: (INSIDER CONTENT) PTK Federatsiya development in 2018: Parachute tests, project status

2018 July 14: New page: 7K-L1 No. 8L

2018 July 9: New page: Progress MS-09

2018 June 17: New page: Soyuz rocket missions in 2018

2018 June 16: New page: GLONASS-M No. 56

2018 June 5: New page: Soyuz MS-09

2018 June 5: Update: Baikal booster: Info on super-light launcher plans, imagery

2018 May 15: Updates: Launch of Sputnik-3; History of the Object-D project; Previews of Object D virtual model, info

2018 May 3: Update: Hab module for cis-lunar station: 2018 developments

2018 May 2: New page: RD-815 engine (INSIDER CONTENT No. 12); Update: ESPRIT module: 2018 developments

2018 May 1: New page: INSIDER CONTENT landing page and subscription info

2018 April 27: New page: Airlock status in 2018 (INSIDER CONTENT No. 10)

2018 April 25: New page: Rockot launch with Sentinel-3B

2018 April 23: New page: 7K-L1 No. 7L

2018 April 18: New pages: Blagovest-12L, Blagovest series (page split, updates): Blagovest-11L

2018 April 16: Update: Power and Propulsion Element, PPE, for near-lunar station: info, imagery on industrial studies

2018 April 4: New page: NEM-2 tourist module (INSIDER CONTENT No. 7)

2018 March 29: New page: EMKA (Kosmos-2525)

2018 March 21: New page: Soyuz MS-08

2018 March 12: Update: Investigation into the Soyuz-1 landing accident: historic map of the landing area

2018 March 5: New page: Zond-4 (7K-L1 No. 6L)

2018 March 2: New page: Sarmat ICBM

2018 Feb. 21: Update: Sea Launch in 2018

2018 Feb. 14: New page: RD-171MV (INSIDER CONTENT No. 1)

2018 Feb. 8: Update: Columbus module: Early concept visuals, Bartolomeo project info

2018 Feb. 5: New page: MLM Nauka module in 2018

2018 Feb. 2: Update: Soyuz MS-06: Russian EVA-44 info imagery

2018 Jan. 31: New page: Kanopus-V-3, Kanopus-V-4

2018 Jan. 30: New page: Spektr-RG project in 2018

2018 Jan. 29: New page: Proton operations in 2018

2018 Jan. 28: Update: Progress GVK: info, imagery

2018 Jan. 23: New page: Block E for the N1/L3 complex

2018 Jan. 16: New page: Luna-Resurs in 2017

2018 Jan. 10: New page: RD-810 engine

2018 Jan. 3: Update: ExoMars-2020 project in 2017 (July-December activties)

2018 Jan. 2: New page: Sea Launch in 2018

2017 Dec. 25: Update: Angosat-1 satellite – info, imagery

2017 Dec. 24: New page: Zenit launch with Angosat-1

2017 Dec. 19: Update: Spektr-RG mission in 2017 – info, imagery

2017 Dec. 16: New page: Soyuz MS-07

2017 Dec. 1: New page: Lotos-S1 No. 803

2017 Nov. 27: New pages: Meteor-M2-1, Baumanets

2017 Nov. 3: Update: Sputnik-2: info, imagery

2017 Oct. 27: New page: RD-861K engine

2017 Oct. 25: Update: Prichal Node Module – info, imagery

2017 Oct. 21: New page: VKZ probe

2017 Oct. 20: Update: ESPRIT module for the cis-lunar station – imagery

2017 Oct. 12: New page: Sentinel-5P

2017 Oct. 4: Update: Sputnik section; R-5, R-7, RT-2 – info, imagery

2017 Oct. 2: New page: NEM-1 module status in 2017

2017 Sept. 23: Update: MLM module status in 2017 – developments in September

2017 Sept. 21: New page: GLONASS-M-52

2017 Sept. 11: New page: Proton mission with Amazonas-5

2017 Sept. 10: New page: Soyuz MS-06 mission

2017 Sept. 5: New page: RD-250 engine

2017 Aug. 16: New page: Blagovest No. 11L

2017 Aug. 7: New page: Soyuz-5/PTK launch vehicle

2017 Aug. 2: Update: MLM tanks; Washing machine ready for operation

2017 Aug. 1: New page: Angara-5M

2017 July 28: New page: Soyuz-FG launch vehicle

2017 July 27: New page: Soyuz MS-05

2017 July 24: Update: Energia-5V: RD-0150, RD-171MV, RD-191V engine designs, info

2017 July 13: New page: Kanopus-V-IK

2017 July 6: Update: Habitation module of the cis-lunar station: the project status

2017 July 5: Update: Obzor-R satellite: first photos, 2017 project status

2017 June 29: Update: Power and Propulsion Bus for the cis-lunar station: latest design graphic, info

2017 June 23: New page: Napryazhenie military satellite

2017 June 21: New page: Tank system of the MLM module

2017 June 15: New page: MLM Nauka project status in 2014

2017 June 13: New page: Progress MS-06

2017 May 19: New page: Spektr-RG project in 2017

2017 May 17: New page: SES-15

2017 May 15: New page: Russian Orbital Station, ROS

2017 May 4: New page: 5M project

2017 May 3: Update: NEM module: info, imagery

2017 April 24: Update: Soyuz-1 mission

2017 April 20: New page: Soyuz rocket missions in 2017

2017 April 18: New page: MLM/Nauka module in 2013

2017 April 13: New page: Canso launch site

2017 April 11: Update: Cis-lunar station: Latest design info-graphic

2017 April 8: New page: 7K-L1 No. 3P

2017 April 5: New page: RD-870

2017 March 17: New page: Soyuz MS-04

2017 March 16: New page: Tsyklon-4M (Cyclone-4M)

2017 March 14: Updates: Proton-Medium; 2017 design revision info, imagery; Kosmos-146: A US intelligence estimate info

2017 March 1: New page: Spektr-R mission in 2017; Update (info, imagery): Launch of Spektr-R

2017 Feb. 28: Update: Origin of Spektr series

2017 Feb. 21: New page: Progress MS-05

2017 Feb. 13: New page: Origin of the cis-lunar project

2017 Feb. 7: New page: Soyuz 7K-OK No. 4 (Kosmos-140)

2017 Jan. 26: New page: Energia-5V/VR concepts

2017 Jan. 25: New page: Proton operations in 2017

2017 Jan. 2: Update: Spektr-RG: ART-XC telescope delivery, info, imagery

2016 Dec. 30: New page: PTK development in 2016

2016 Dec. 22: Update: Soyuz 7K-OK No. 1 launch accident: Rare historical images

2016 Dec. 21: New page: Luna-13

2016 Dec. 11: Update: Progress MS-04: Failure investigation details

2016 Dec. 5: Update: Spektr-RG: Developments in 2016

2016 Nov. 30: New page: Progress MS-04

2016 Nov. 16: New page: Soyuz MS-03

2016 Oct. 24: New page: Angosat mission

2016 Oct. 23: New page: Cygnus OA-5 mission

2016 Oct. 14: New page: ExoMars-2016 arrival at Mars

2016 Oct. 6: New page: Proton-M-Plus

2016 Sept. 27-30: Updates: Sea Launch; MLM module

2016 Sept. 22: New page: Soyuz MS-02

2016 Sept. 21: New page: Proton-Medium

2016 Sept. 13: Update: Proton-Light, Medium variants introduced: info, imagery

2016 Sept. 12: New page: Sunkar rocket proposal

2016 Aug. 10: New pages and updates: Inflatable systems in space:

2016 Aug. 9: Update: info, imagery: Luna-24

2016 Aug. 6: Update: info, imagery: Vostok-2 mission

2016 July 13: New page: Production of the Angara rocket

2016 July 6-8: New section: Soyuz MS

2016 July 4: New page: Soyuz MS-01

2016 June 23: New page: Proton-Light

2016 June 8: New pages: Proton-M, Intelsat-31

2016 June 3: New page: Geo-IK-2 No. 12

2016 May 10: New page: Drop zones for Vostochny

2016 April 27: New page: Vostochny home page

2016 April 27: New page: First launch from Vostochny

2016 April 22: New page: Sentinel-1B

2016 April 14: New page: Vostochny development in 2016

2016 April 12: Update: Gagarin’s flight aboard Vostok

2016 April 4: New page: Luna-10

2016 March 29: New page: Progress MS-02

2016 March 24: Update: Bars-M: info, imagery; New page: Soyuz rocket missions in 2016

2016 March 18: New page: Soyuz TMA-20M

2016 March 14: New pages: ExoMars home page, ExoMars mission

2016 March 11: New page: Briz-M upper stage

2016 March 3: New page: Proton launch with ExoMars-2016

2016 Feb. 26: New page: Schiaparelli (EDM) Mars lander

2016 Feb. 16: New page: Sentinel-3A

2016 Feb. 6: New page: GLONASS-51

2016 Feb. 4: New page: Luna-9

2016 Feb. 2: Update: Spektr-RG; 2015, 2016 mission status, imagery

2016 Jan. 25: Update: Spektr-UF; 2015 mission status

2016 Jan. 21: Update: Angara-5P; info, imagery

2016 Jan. 15: Update: PTK project in 2015; info, imagery

2016 Jan. 11: Update: Soyuz-5 (Feniks) project; info, imagery

2016 Jan. 8: New page: Proton operations in 2016

2015 Dec. 29: Update: 2015 in space: Highlights of the year

2015 Dec. 28: Update: Vostochny development in 2015: End-of-year activities

2015 Dec. 21: New page: Ekspress-AMU1

2015 Dec. 21: New page: Progress-MS

2015 Dec. 14: New page: Soyuz TMA-19M mission

2015 Dec. 12-13: Update: Garpun military communications satellite: info, imagery on Garpun 12L launch

2015 Dec. 11: New page: Elektro-L2 weather satellite

2015 Dec. 4: New page: Kanopus-ST satellite

2015 Nov. 19: New page: Nord project

2015 Nov. 16: New section: EKS satellite system

2015 Nov. 8: New page: MOB1-KVTK space tug

2015 Oct. 9: New page: Luna-Glob project in 2015

2015 Oct. 5: New page: PTK project in 2015

2015 Sept. 29: New page: Progress M-29M

2015 Sept. 24: Update: Rodnik satellites: Ninth mission info, hardware visualizations, launch profile graphic

2015 Sept. 23: New page: Block DM-03 space tug

2015 Sept. 7: New page: Soyuz-2 rockets for Vostochny

2015 Aug. 31: New page: Mission of Soyuz TMA-18M

2015 Aug. 24: New page: Soyuz launch control room

2015 July 21: New page: R-6 missile

2015 July 20: New page: Soyuz TMA-17M

2015 July 8: Update: Kosmos-2504: project info

2015 July 2: New page: Progress M-28M

2015 June 29: New page: Proton’s RD-0210 engine

2015 June 23-24: Update: Persona, Kobalt-M: ground track maps, launch videos, photos, hardware visualizations, info

2015 June 22: New page: Ground control in Vostochny

2015 June 18: Update: N1 Moon Rocket: imagery

2015 June 14: New page: Angara-5/KVTK launch vehicle

2015 June 6: Update: Lotos-S/Liana/Pion-NKS: info

2015 June 5: Update: Kobalt-M, Kosmos-2505 launch info, imagery

2015 June 4: New page: RD-0212; update: Proton home page: info, imagery

2015 May 15: New page: RD-181

2015 May 15: New page: Proton launch with MexSat-1

2015 May 10: New page: URM-2V booster for the Angara-5V rocket

2015 April 27: New page: Progress M-27M

2015 April 18: New page: Kosmos-2504

2015 April 13: Update: Angara-5V info, imagery

2015 April 4: Update: KompSat-3A info, imagery, launch video

2015 March 25: New page: Dnepr launch with KompSat-3A

2015 March 22: New page: Angara-5V

2015 March 18: New page: Ekspress-AM7

2015 March 3: New page: Roskosmos

2015 Feb. 29: New pages: Yantar-1KFT Kometa, Bars, Bars-M military cartography satellites

2015 Feb. 18: New page: Vostochny airport

2015 Feb. 17: New page: Soyuz rocket missions in 2015

2015 Feb. 16: New page: Progress M-26M

2015 Feb. 5: New page: Vostochny development in 2015

2015 Jan. 20: New page: RD-191 engine

2015 Jan. 12: Update: NEM module info, imagery, visualizations

2015 Jan. 5: Update: High-Latitude Orbital Station, VShOS (station assembly renderings; Soyuz landing info)

2015 Jan. 4: Update: Vostochny development in 2014 (year-end status update)

2014 Dec. 28: New page: Resurs-P2

2014 Dec. 27: New page: Astra-2G

2014 Dec. 15: New page: Super-heavy launcher

2014 Dec. 12: New page: Yamal-401

2014 Dec. 10: New page: Energia-5KV

2014 Dec. 4: New page: Proton missions in 2015

2014 Nov. 30: New page: GLONASS-K No. 12 launch; Update: info, imagery: GLONASS-K series

2014 Nov. 21: New page: Mission of Soyuz TMA-15M

2014 Nov. 3: Update: OKA-T free-flying orbital laboratory: info on Kremlin reaction; tech specs for OKA-T-MKS; early info on OKA-T-2, budget and more; imagery: evolution of OKA-T design

2014 Oct. 30: New page: Kosmos-2499

2014 Oct. 29: New page: Meridian-7

2014 Oct. 28: New page: Progress M-25M

2014 Oct. 26: New page: Kondor-E radar satellite; Update, info, imagery: Strela launcher

2014 Oct. 12: New section: Voskhod mission

2014 Sept. 26: New page: Olymp satellite

2014 Sept. 25: New page: How Soyuz is published

2014 Sept. 23: New page: Soyuz TMA-14M mission

2014 Sept. 8: New page: Residential area in Vostochny

2014 Sept. 4: New page: Energia-M launch vehicle

2014 Aug. 29: New page: Space exploration in 2025

2014 July 31: Update: Vostochny development in 2014: Soyuz pad construction status, info, images

2014 July 29: New page: ExoMars mission status in 2014

2014 July 28: New page: RD-0120 engine

2014 July 24: Update: First flight of the Angara-5 rocket (A computer-generated cross section of the Angara-5/Briz-M configuration)

2014 July 18: New page: Foton-M4 mission

2014 July 17: Update: Inflatable module (info, images)

2014 July 15: New page: Angara-5

2014 July 7: New page: Meteor-M No. 2

2014 July 3: New page: The second launch of the N1 rocket

2014 June 30: New page: LK/LK-1 project

2014 June 26: Update: Angara home page

2014 June 17: New pages: URM-1 and URM-2 rocket modules of the Angara family

2014 May 28: New page: Soyuz TMA-13M (Expedition 40/41)

2014 May 19: New page: VR-3 rocket

2014 April 20: Update: Spektr-RG — project status report for 2013, 2014, history, technical details, info

2014 April 18: Update: NIP-16 in Yevpatoria — a photo-essay from the location

2014 April 15: New page: Egyptsat-2

2014 April 8: New page: Second stage of the Soyuz rocket

2014 April 7: New page: First stage of the Soyuz rocket

2014 April 6: New page, Angara-1: Angara-1 to inaugurate new rocket family

2014 April 2: New page, Sentinel-1A: Soyuz launches European radarsat

2014 April 2: New section: 3MV project:

2014 March 25: New page: Soyuz TMA-12M (Expedition 39/40)

2014 March 24: New page, NIP-16 ground station: Crimean space connection

2014 March 4: New page: ExoMars to pave the way for soil sample return (Expedition-M project)

2014 Feb. 21: New page: First launch of the N1 rocket

2014 Feb. 20: New page: Proton missions in 2014

2014 Feb. 16: New page: Hot breath of Kholod

2014 Feb. 5: New page: Proton launch with Turksat-4A satellite

2014 Feb. 5: New pages: Mission of Progress M-22M; Soyuz rocket missions in 2014

2014 Feb. 3: New page, NEM-1: Russia works on a new-generation space module

2014 Jan. 29: New page, Vehicle 212: Cruise missile is born in the midst of “Great terror”

2014 Jan. 27: New page, Vostochny: Construction in Vostochny to enter critical phase in 2014

2014 Jan. 20: New page, Vostochny: Vostochny turns from clay to stone in 2013

2014 Jan. 14: Update: info, imagery: Persona reconnaissance satellite

2014 Jan. 8: Update, Soyuz-2-3 launch vehicle: Triumph of Soyuz-2-1v opens door to future launchers

2014 Jan. 2: New page, Luna 1: USSR launches the first artificial planet

2013 Dec. 31: Update (Laplas-P mission): Russia funds a proposal to land on Jupiter’s moon Ganymede

2013 Dec. 26: New page: Proton launches Ekspress-AM5 communications satellite

2013 Dec. 21: New page: Soyuz-2-1v to fly its maiden mission

2013 Dec. 19: New page: Russia plans star-mapping satellite

2013 Dec. 18: New section: Visual history of astronomical tools

2013 Dec. 8: New page: Proton launches Inmarsat-5 F1 satellite

2013 Nov. 22: New page: Rockot successfully launches Swarm satellites

2013 Nov. 17: New page: Strizh rescue suit for Buran pilots

2013 Nov. 3: New page: Anapa asteroid-orbiting mission

2013 Oct. 29: New page: Arktika satellite network

2013 Oct. 19: New page: Proton mission to launch Sirius FM-6 satellite

2013 Oct. 17: New page: Space developments in 2023

2013 Oct. 14: New page: Kaskad launcher family proposal

2013 Oct. 9: New page: Mayak launcher

2013 Oct. 3: New page: Angara-5P;

2013 Oct. 1: New page: Russian manned space program strategy in 2010s;

2013 Sept. 29: Updated and expanded: A virtual guide to the Proton rocket (Home page);

2013 Sept. 27: New page: A Proton mission to launch Astra-2E satellite;

2013 Sept. 23: New page: Soyuz TMA-10M mission;

2013 Sept. 19: New page: MAKS 2013 air and space show photo archive;

2013 Sept. 9: New page: Orlan MKS spacesuit;

2013 Sept. 4: New page: Cheget cosmonaut chair;

2013 Aug. 31: New page: Zenit launch with AMOS-4 satellite: info, imagery;

2013 Aug. 30: Update: PTK NP’s landing gear: Info, imagery;

2013 Aug. 29: Update: Descent module of PTK NP spacecraft: Info, imagery on the toilet system;

2013 Aug. 28: Update: PTK NP development in 2013: Info, imagery from MAKS-2013 air and space show;

2013 Aug. 21: Update: ExoMars 2018: info, imagery;

2013 Aug. 15: New page: Inflatable space structures;

2013 July 30: New page: Super-heavy launchers proposed by TsSKB Progress;

2013 July 27: New page: Progress M-20M mission;

2013 July 11: New page: Mars-69 missions;

2013 July 8: New pages, content split: Proton launch facilities in Baikonur:

2013 July 1: Content split, new page: GLONASS network section home; GLONASS satellite missions;

2013 June 25: Update: Obzor-R: info, imagery;

2013 June 24: Update: PTK NP development in 2013, Descent Module of PTK NP: info, imagery from Le Bourget;

2013 June 23: Update: Soyuz-5 rocket: info, imagery;

2013 June 21: New page: A Soyuz mission to launch O3b satellites;

2013 June 16: New page: Soyuz-5 rocket;

2013 June 12: New section: Missions of Vostok-5 and Vostok-6;

2013 June 2: New page: A Proton mission delivering SES-6 satellite;

2013 May 30: New page: Treadmill system on the Service Module of the ISS;

2013 May 28: New page: Soyuz TMA-09M;

2013 May 18: New page: Landing of Bion M No. 1 spacecraft;

2013 May 15: Update: PTK NP landing gear: imagery; Update: PTK NP development in 2013: info, imagery;

2013 May 15: New page: Sputnik-3 launch;

2013 May 13: New page: Plans for military uses of the N1 Moon rocket;

2013 May 5: New page: PTK NP spacecraft development in 2013;

2013 April 25: New page: Landing gear of PTK-NP spacecraft;

2013 April 23: New page: Bion-M No. 1 mission;

2013 April 22: New page: Vozvrat-MKA;

2013 April 18: New page: Bion project home page;

2013 April 15: New page: Proton mission to launch Anik G1 satellite;

2013 April 11: New page: Mars-3’s likely landing site;

2013 April 10: New page: Angara launch facility in Vostochny;

2013 April 7: New page: Luna-Glob mission status in 2013;

2013 March 28: New page: Soyuz TMA-08M;

2013 March 26: New page: Proton mission to launch SatMex-8 satellite;

2013 March 20: New page: Book review: Russia’s Future in Space, The Untold Story;

2013 March 10: New page: Mars sample return;

2013 March 6: Update: Crew module of the PTK NP spacecraft; (A series of renderings showing evolution of the crew module design from 2010 till today);

2013 Feb. 20: Update: PTK NP spacecraft development in 2012 (Info on the PTK NP emergency escape trajectory, flight test program, etc); Descent module, VA of the PTK NP spacecraft (Info);

2013 Feb. 18: New page: Crew module of the PTK NP spacecraft;

2013 Feb. 11: New page: Soyuz rocket launches in 2013;

2013 Feb. 4: New page: RD-170/171 engine;

2013 Jan. 31: New pages, virtual model, imagery, content split: Zenit launch vehicle;

2013 Jan. 30: Update: South-Korean Launch Vehicle, KSLV-1: A virtual model of the rocket, photos, info;

2013 Jan. 29: New page: Laser tracking facilities;

2013 Jan. 27: New page: Laplas mission to Jupiter and its moons;

2013 Jan. 23: New page: Bion biological research satellite;

2013 Jan. 20: New page: DALS instrument package from the L3 project;

2013 Jan. 18: New page: Hypersonic vehicles;

2013 Jan. 16: New page: Proton missions in 2013;

2013 Jan. 15: New page: Rodnik military communications satellite;

2013 Jan. 13: New page: Processing area in Vostochny;

2013 Jan. 9: New page: Yenisei-5 launch vehicle;

2013 Jan. 7: New page: Spektr-M orbital observatory; Update: PTK NP spacecraft development in 2012: info, imagery;

2013 Jan. 2: Content split, new pages and updates: Soyuz-2-1v home page;

2012 Dec. 26: New page: Spektr-UF;

2012 Dec. 18: New pages: Obzor-O; Obzor-R, Soyuz TMA-07M;

2012 Dec. 17: Updates: Araks and Persona projects (info, imagery);

2012 Dec. 14: New page: Proton launch with Yamal-402 satellite;

2012 Dec. 4: Update: PTK NP spacecraft development in 2012 (interactive graphic; artist renderings, info);

2012 Nov. 30: Update: Sodruzhestvo launch vehicle (interactive graphic of manned lunar version; artist renderings);

2012 Nov. 29: New page: Intergelio-Zond mission;

2012 Nov. 26: New pages: Persona; Resurs-P;

2012 Nov. 13: New pages: Plesetsk launch sites for Soyuz rockets;

2012 Nov. 10: New pages: Luna-Resurs lander;

2012 Nov. 7: Update: Karat (MKA-FKI) platform and new pages on its derivatives:

2012 Nov. 3: Update: Laika’s launch on Sputnik-2: Info, imagery;

2012 Oct. 29: New page: Soyuz launch complex in Vostochny;

2012 Oct. 22: New pages: Cuban missile crisis; Soyuz TMA-06M;

2012 Oct. 15: New page: Space flight to Langrangian points;

2012 Oct. 3: Update: Origin of the Sputnik project, Object-D (Sputnik-3) project; Design of a simplest satellite (Sputnik-1); Preparing for launch; Launch of Sputnik-1; Aftermath of Sputnik: Info, imagery;

2012 Sept. 30: Update: Status of the PTK NP project during 2012: Artist rendering of the PTK spacecraft and the Earth departure stage in lunar orbit;

2012 Sept. 24: New page: Status of the PTK NP project during 2012; Update: MLM (FGB-2) module: info, rendering, photography;

2012 Sept. 17: New page: MetOp weather-forecasting satellites;

2012 Aug. 15: New page: SKA radar satellite ;

2012 Aug. 11: New page: Vostok-3 and Vostok-4 dual mission ;

2012 Aug. 10: New page: Ekspress-1000N;

2012 Aug. 7: New page: Ekspress-MD2;

2012 Aug. 5: New page: ExoMars 2018;

2012 July 20: New page: Kanopus-V; Karat; Update: BelKA;

2012 July 14: New page: Soyuz TMA-05M; Update: Phobos-Grunt-2; Lunar plans in 2012;

2012 July 8: New page: Briz upper stage;

2012 May 14: New page: Docking systems;

2012 April 23: New page: Mission to Apophis;

2012 April 9: New page: Mercury-P;

2012 April 6: New page: Mars-NET;

2012 April 5: New page: Phobos-Grunt-2;

2012 April 4: New page: Plans for unmanned missions to the Moon as of 2012;

2012 Feb. 14: New page: Proton missions in 2012;

2012 Feb. 12: New page: Vega launch vehicle;

2012 Jan. 15: New page: Mars-96;

2011 Dec. 28: New page: Globalstar-2 missions;

2011 Dec. 24: New page: Meridian No. 5 launch failure;

2011 Dec. 23: New page: RD-0124 engine;

2011 Dec. 21: New page: Kosmos-482 (Venera-72 No. 671);

2011 Dec. 20: New page: Soyuz TMA-03M;

2011 Dec. 14: New page: Boris Chertok;

2011 Dec. 11: New page: Luch relay satellites;

2011 Dec. 10: New page: Phobos-Grunt reentry; Luch-5A relay satellite;

2011 Nov. 27: New page: Russian space industry in 2010s;

2011 Nov. 22: New page: ExoMars 2016, Zenit’s second stage;

2011 Nov. 8: New page: Launch of the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft;

2011 Nov. 7: New page: Phobos (Fobos) mission;

2011 Nov. 7: New page: Origin of the Phobos-Grunt mission;

2011 Oct. 30: Update: Naryad killer satellite system: info, imagery;

2011 Oct. 20: New page: Galileo satellite;

2011 Sept. 21: New page: Garpun military data relay satellite;

2011 Sept. 20: New page: Ekspress-AM4 communications satellite;

2011 Aug. 28: New page: RD-0110 engine; Stage III of the Soyuz rocket;

2011 Aug. 25: New page: Progress M-12M launch failure;

2011 Aug. 22: New page: MAKS-2011 photo report;

2011 Aug. 12: New page: Sich-2 satellite;

2011 Aug. 6: New page: Gherman Titov’s mission onboard Vostok-2;

2011 July 22: New page: Spektr-R orbital mission;

2011 July 7: New page: Rheinbote missile;

2011 June 30: New page: PTK NP project development during 2011;

2011 June 21: New page: Paris Air and Space Show in Le Bourget;

2011 June 13: New page: Phobos-Grunt development during 2011;

2011 June 13: Update: Luna-Resurs; Luna-Resurs landing; Luna-Glob: info, imagery on the latest architecture and flight scenarios;

2011 June 8: New page: Spektr-R home page;

2011 June 7: New page: Soyuz TMA-02M;

2011 May 20: New page: Proton operations in 2011;

2011 May 7: New page: Design of the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft;

2011 May 6: Update: RT-1 ballistic missile: info, imagery;

2011 April 26-27: New page: Excalibur-Almaz;

2011 April 18: New page: Russian space industry in 2000s;

2011 April 13: Update: Block D space tug: info, photography, artist rendering; Origin of the Vostok spacecraft: info, imagery;

2011 April 11: New page: The Vostok launch vehicle;

2011 April 10: Update and restructuring: Gagarin’s flight onboard Vostok;

2011 April 4: New page: Soyuz TMA-21;

2011 March 11: Update: Soyuz habitation module, RT-1 ballistic missile: info, imagery;

2011 March 10: Update: LK lunar lander: info, imagery;

2011 Feb. 25: New page: GLONASS-K;

2011 Feb. 1: New page: Geo-IK-2, Musson (Geo-IK) and Sfera geodetic satellites;

2011 Jan. 19: New page: Elektro-L weather satellite; Navigator spacecraft bus; Update: Fregat upper stage;

2010 Dec. 21: Update: Luna-Glob mission scenario: details, imagery;

2010 Dec. 15: New page: Venera-7;

2010 Dec. 13: New page: Soyuz TMA-20;

2010 Nov. 19: New page: Luna-Resurs landing;

2010 Nov. 17: New page: Phobos-Grunt mission scenario;

2010 Nov. 12: Update: Habitation module of the Soyuz spacecraft: info, imagery;

2010 Nov. 7: Update: PTK NP development in 2010: imagery – rendering of the expendable cargo-delivery vehicle;

2010 Nov. 2: New page: PTK-Z spacecraft;

2010 Oct. 25: Updated: Rus-M technical project, Vostochny facilities; info, imagery;

2010 Oct. 17: Updated: Landing system of the PTK NP spacecraft, OPSEK, PTK NP mods: info, visualization imagery;

2010 Oct. 11: Updated: Luna-Glob/Luna-Resurs: Mission status/science payload info; an image of the latest design for orbiters;

2010 Oct. 6: New page: Soyuz TMA-M series; Soyuz TMA-01M mission;

2010 Oct. 1: New page: Molniya rocket;

2010 Sept. 8: New page: Gonets/Strela;

2010 Sept. 6: Updated: Unmanned missions to the Moon: info;

2010 Aug. 12: New page: Luna-Glob;

2010 July 21-22: Update: PTK NP development in 2010: info, imagery;

2010 July 21: New page: Space at Farnborough 2010;

2010 July 7: Update: Soyuz-1 launcher: info, imagery;

2010 June 22: New page: Luna-24;

2010 June 21: New page: Spektr-RG;

2010 June 18: New page: NK-33 engine;

2010 June 15: New page: Soyuz TMA-19;

2010 May 26: Update: Phobos-Grunt preparation: soil sampler info, hardware images;

2010 May 14: New page: MIM1 Rassvet module of the ISS;

2010 May 2: New page: Space exploration in 2016;

2010 April 27: New page: Parus;

2010 April 16: New page: Kobalt-M;

2010 April 2: New page: Soyuz TMA-18;

2010 March 10: Update: Phobos-Grunt preparation: soil sampler replacement, test prototype images;

2010 Feb. 28: Update: IS, Naryad anti-satellite systems: info, imagery;

2010 Jan. 26: New page: PTK NP project during 2010;

2010 Jan. 20: New page: Node Module for the ISS;

2010 Jan. 12: New page: Progress-Centaur combination for cargo supply to the lunar orbit;

2010 Jan. 4-5: Update: Space exploration in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013: info, imagery;

2010 Jan. 1: New page: Space exploration in 2015;

2009 Dec. 25: Update: Space exploration in 2009;

2009 Dec. 20: New page: Soyuz TMA-17; update: Enterprise/MIM-1: US post-arrival images;

2009 Dec. 18: New page: NITs RKP space center, a.k.a. Zagorsk, Sergiev Posad, Peresvet;

2009 Dec. 15-17: Update: GLONASS network: info, imagery;

2009 Nov. 9: Update: ISS docking compartment/Mini-research module: interactive graphic, info, photos;

2009 Oct. 30: Update: Site 254 in Baikonur: info, photos;

2009 Oct. 24: Update: Phobos-Grunt preparation: mission status, test prototype image;

2009 Oct. 7: New page: Venera-D;

2009 Sept. 28: Update: Site-250/Baiterek complex: info, imagery;

2009 Sept. 10: New page: Soyuz-1 rocket;

2009 Sept. 6: Update: Rus-M rocket: an artist rendering of the Rus-M launch with the PTK NP spacecraft;

2009 Sept. 2: Update: PPTS spacecraft: artwork reflecting data from MAKS-2009 – thermal protection tiles, laser-guided rendezvous system, aerodynamic flaps, rotating solar arrays, reconfigured sensors, antennas, propulsion and attitude control systems, an external umbilical from crew module to service module, reshaped forward thruster gondola on the crew module;

2009 Aug. 26: Update: Rus-M rocket: artist rendering of the Rus-M family based on official info from MAKS-2009; Phobos-Grunt: info, MAKS-2009 scale models imagery of the spacecraft, Chinese microsatellite;

2009 Aug. 25: Update: Angara rocket: Korean launch vehicle, KSLV, info;

2009 Aug. 24: Update: Rus-M rocket: info, photos from MAKS-2009;

2009 Aug. 21: Update: PPTS spacecraft: info, photos from MAKS-2009;

2009 Aug. 20: New page: MAKS-2009 highlights;

2009 July 20: Update: LK lunar lander: virtual model of the spacecraft;

2009 July 3: New page: OPSEK: Russian-European plans to succeed the ISS: info, imagery, animation;

2009 June 26: Update: ARD: info, imagery on Phase A work;

2009 June 24: Update: Angara rocket: info, imagery;

2009 June 23: Update: Fregat upper stage: S5.92 engine info, imagery; Rus-M: development info;

2009 June 22: Update: Phobos-Grunt: propulsion system, scale model info, imagery; PPTS: RKK Energia chief comments on the development budget; RD-0146: 1 to 5 model photo;

Angara-7: info, imagery from Le Bourget 2009;

2009 June 18: Update: Le Bourget 2009: Mars rover demo video; photos from the show;

2009 June 15: New page: Le Bourget 2009: Show highlights;

2009 June 4: Update: Launch vehicle for PPTS project: info based on the official tender documentation;

2009 May 25: Update: Phobos-Grunt mission details on pre-launch processing, based on Georgy Poleshyuk interview to the Russian media;

2009 May 13: New page: RD-0146: History of the project, technical estimates, imagery;

2009 May 5: New page: Development of the landing system for the PPTS spacecraft: info, animation and imagery of the possible PPTS emergency landing profile;

2009 April 28: Update: Russia’s next-generation spacecraft within PPTS project: Animation of the spacecraft touchdown;

2009 April 11: Update: Launch vehicle for PPTS project: info, photo, artist rendering;

2009 March 20: Update: Launch vehicle for PPTS project: Artist rendering of the launch vehicle proposed by RKK Energia, Angara-5P photo, info;

2009 March 19: Update: Launch vehicle for PPTS project: Artist rendering of the launch vehicle family based on RD-180 engine;

2009 March 17: New page: Launch vehicle for PPTS project;

2009 Feb. 22: Update: Soyuz, Vega launch pads in French Guiana. Construction, upgrades status;

2009 Feb. 12: Update: Military spacecraft: Artist rendering of the Strela-2M communications satellite;

2009 Feb. 8: Update: Phobos-Grunt mission composite of TV frames showing hardware assembly; official statement maintaining 2009 launch date;

2009 Feb. 1: Update: Russian plans for new space station; Star City transfer from Air Force to Roskosmos;

2009 Jan. 28: New page: Koronas-Foton project;

2009 Jan. 26: Update: Launch schedule for 2009;

2009 Jan. 9: Update: Russian space program in 2000-2010: Tender for the next-generation rocket for manned space flight;

2008 Dec. 30: Update: 2008 — Top 10 space achievements of the year;

2008 Nov. 24: Update: ARD: Artist rendering of the Advanced Reentry Vehicle;

2008 Nov. 15: New page: Spiral development: info, artwork, photography;

2008 Oct. 14: New page: Soyuz TMA-13 mission (The 18th long-duration expedition to the ISS);

2008 Oct. 9: Update: History of ACTS project: Artist renderings of launch-vehicles proposed for the next-generation spacecraft;

2008 Oct. 7: New page: Kummersdorf: info, on-location photos, historic imagery, cartography, artwork;

2008 Oct. 4: Update: The Hs-293 cruise missile, Blizna test site: photos, info;

2008 Sept. 8: New page: N1_ru – the first Russian language test page;

2008 Aug. 25: Update: History of ACTS project: Flight profile animation, still imagery: Launch; Technical information on the spacecraft; characteristics and project requirements;

2008 Aug. 20: Update: History of ACTS project: Flight profile animation: Deorbiting maneuver;

2008 Aug. 20: New page: Future missions: 2012, 2013, 2014;

2008 Aug. 14: Update: History of ACTS project: Flight profile animation: Orbit insertion;

2008 Aug. 11: Update: History of ACTS project: Artist renderings of the July 2008 configuration of the ACTS spacecraft and its flight phases;

2008 July 29: Update: ACTS project: New abstract page, artist rendering of the ACTS spacecraft interior;

2008 July 18: Update: ACTS project: Artist rendering of the ACTS spacecraft based on the configuration revealed at the Farnborough Air Show;

2008 July 15: Update: Early rocketry: info, imagery;

2008 July 10: Update: Soyuz TMA-12 mission: EVA info, info-graphic;

2008 June 23: New page: Preparing Phobos-Grunt for launch; Update: Phobos-Grunt project: Mass breakdown of the Phobos-Grunt mission;

2008 June 18: New page: Phobos-Grunt project: info, imagery on the final architecture of the mission;

2008 June 15: Update: Russian space program in the first decade of the 21st century: info, imagery on Russia’s science and planetary missions;

2008 June 8: New page: ILA-2008: Photo-reportage from the Berlin air and space show;

2008 June 4: Update: ACTS project: information, artist renderings on the latest version of the ACTS spacecraft;

2008 May 29: Update: European manned spacecraft: information, photography from the ILA-2008 show in Berlin;

2008 April 28: Update: Soyuz TMA-11 mission: account of landing incident, artist renderings;

2008 April 7: New page: Soyuz TMA-12 mission;

2008 March 17: Updated: ATV: History of the program;

2008 March 16: New page: Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, ARD; Update: ATV: Video, photos of the launch;

2008 March 6-9: Update: Kourou launch site; ATV spacecraft: initial imagery from the trip to French Guiana;

2008 March 4: New page: ATV: History of the program;

2008 Feb. 19: New page: Lunar Orbital Station, LOS: Visualization of a conceptual design;

2008 Feb. 7: New page: Columbus laboratory module: European segment of the ISS;

2008 Feb. 2: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: news; artist rendering of the ACTS crew module and the Soyuz spacecraft to scale;

2008 Jan. 24: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: news/historical information; Svobodny/Vostochny: news/historical information;

2008 Jan. 5: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: artist renderings of a prospective design of the Russian lunar lander;

2008 Jan. 3: New page: Russian space program: A decade review (2000-2010): History, imagery;

2007 Nov. 27: Update: Svobodny/Vostochny: Map of launch trajectories and first stage drop zones

2007 Nov. 26: New page: Soyuz ACRV: History, imagery

2007 Nov. 20: Update: Origin of the Soyuz/ACTS project: info-graphic of Soyuz, ATV and Soyuz/ACRV vehicles to scale

2007 Nov. 17: New page: Sea Launch: a sea-based launch site

2007 Nov. 2: New page: Sputnik-2: The 50th anniversary of Laika’s launch: history, photos, illustrations, animation of the mission

2007 Oct. 7: Update: Site 112 in Baikonur: imagery

2007 Sept. 29: Update: Sputnik design: imagery, technical information

2007 Sept. 24: New page: Biography of Mikhail Tikhonravov, a pioneer of the Soviet rocketry and space program

Update: Ground control (Sputnik tracking info):

2007 Sept. 6: Update: The Hs-293 cruise missile: Hardware photos; historic imagery

2007 Aug. 2: Update: Svobodny: info on the closure of the facility; plans for the new launch site in the Far East

2007 June 21: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: animation, still imagery of the docking between Soyuz ACTS spacecraft and the KVRB space tug

2007 May 28: Update: Soyuz ACTS: artist renderings of the Soyuz/Fregat combination, description of additional lunar mission scenarios

2007 May 14: Update: The R-7 rocket: artist renderings, historic imagery, information

2007 April 24: Update: video of the 8th Dnepr launch

2007 March 2: New page: ACTS development history

2007 Feb. 7: Update: Artist rendering of the Progress M2 spacecraft

2007 Feb. 1: New page: The Zenit-3SL rocket failure on the Sea Launch platform

2007 Jan. 17: New page: 2007 in space: Trends and developments, 2008, 2009, 2010

2007 Jan. 12: Update: Korolev: biography, historic and contemporary imagery

2006 Nov. 4: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: mission scenario info, artist renderings, animation of circumlunar flight

2006 Sept. 26: Update: Soyuz/ACTS project: artist rendering of the early European-Russian cooperation concept

2006 July 27: New page: BelKA remote-sensing satellite

2006 July 11: Update: Dombarovskiy ICBM and space launch site: cartography, imagery, historic data

2006 June 15: New page: Resurs-DK remote-sensing satellite

2006 June 12: Update: Follow-on to the TKS spacecraft: proposals to the government tender on the Kliper project

2006 May 27: New page: Compass science satellite

2006 May 25: New page: Soyuz-2-3 launch vehicle

2006 March 30: New page: ISS mission chronology (a complete list of past and future ISS missions

2006 March 29: New page: The Soyuz TMA-8 mission

2006 March 26: Update: Kliper in 2006: animation and still imagery of the Kliper docking with the Parom orbital tug

2006 Feb. 19: New page: Mir chronology (year by year)

2006 Feb. 18: Updated and expanded: Kliper, (abstract page)

2006 Jan. 2: Update: Parom orbital tug – information and imagery on the cargo carrier

2005 Oct. 10: Update: Soyuz-3 launch vehicle – Artist rendering of the Soyuz-3 launch, carrying the Kliper spacecraft

2005 Oct. 1: New page: Soyuz TMA-7 mission

2005 Sept. 18: Update: Kliper spacecraft – 3D imagery of separation of the launch vehicle adapter and propulsion module

2005 Sept. 2: Update: Kliper spacecraft – 3D animation of the spacecraft orbital insertion

2005 Sept. 1: Update: Kliper spacecraft – 3D animation of the spacecraft segmentation

2005 Aug. 30: Update: Kliper spacecraft – infographic of the spacecraft segmentation

2005 July 24: New page: Kourou launch site

2005 June 23: Update: Kliper spacecraft – Photos of the latest version mockup in Le Bourget

2005 June 9: Update: Kliper spacecraft – 3D animation and rendering of orbital insertion

Partners announced in latest NASA commercial collaboration – SpaceFlight Insider

Spaceflight Insider

In late December of 2014, NASA announced the participation of four companies collaborating in the space agency’s unfunded milestone program to develop greater private space capacity. The selection comes after a year of intense private-public partnerships intended by the space agency to encourage innovation across America’s aerospace industry.

The Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC) program is part of the family of Space Act Agreements (SAAs). These agreements require no federal funding for the private partners, but allow NASA to contribute technical training, technology exchanges, and research data. In so doing, the agency acts as a clearinghouse for information, facilitating not only the faster development of private capabilities, but also helping to promote inter-industry platforms capable of interoperating. This ensures greater cost saving for NASA and a variety of private contractors.

“As with NASA’s previous unfunded commercial partnerships, U.S. companies significantly benefit from the agency’s extensive infrastructure, experience and knowledge in spaceflight development and operations,” According to NASA’s director of commercial spaceflight development Phil McAlister,

According to the NASA press release, the four companies selected to participate in CCSC include:

ATK Space Systems, in Beltsville, Maryland, is developing space logistics, hosted payload and other space transportation capabilities.

Final Frontier Design, in Brooklyn, New York, is developing intra-vehicular activity space suits.

Space Exploration Technologies, in Hawthorne, California, is developing space transportation capabilities that could be used to support missions into deep space.

United Launch Alliance, in Centennial, Colorado, is developing new launch vehicle capabilities to reduce cost and enhance performance.

NASA Solicits New Collaborative Partnerships with Commercial Space Industry. Image Credit: NASA

“Companies in all shapes and sizes are investing their own capital toward innovative commercial space capabilities. These awards demonstrate the diversity and maturity of the commercial space industry. We look forward to working with these partners to advance space capabilities and make them available to NASA and other customers in the coming years,” McAlister said.

“The growing U.S. commercial spaceflight industry is opening low-Earth orbit in ways that will improve lives on Earth, drive economic growth and power 21st century innovations. As NASA again pioneers a path into deep space, we look forward to sharing our 50 years of spaceflight experience and fostering partnerships in ways that benefit our nation’s ambitious spaceflight goals,” said William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations.

This concept images shows ARM robotic capture Option B, in which the robotic vehicle ascends from the surface of a large asteroid, on its way to a lunar distant retrograde orbit with a smaller asteroid mass in its clutches. Image and Caption Credit: NASA

The selection of these companies comes only around nine months after NASA posted the announcement for CCSC. A request for information (RFI ) was issued eight months earlier, in July 2013, as NASA explored the potential outcomes of such an initiative. A milestones calendar on NASA’s procurement website indicates that, thus far, the project is well on schedule.

Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities is the last of a long line of private/public partnerships launched by NASA in the past few years. Others include the Commercial Crew Program, an innovation to develop private industry spacecraft to take NASA astronauts to low-Earth orbit (LEO), and Commercial Resupply Missions, an ongoing effort to have private companies provide supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). Both of those initiatives fall under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) umbrella. Still other partnerships include the Lunar CATALYST program, for a robotic lander on the moon, and the Asteroid Redirect Mission Broad Agency, convened to explore options for NASA’s endeavor to capture and visit an asteroid.

NASA’s hope is that such initiatives provide cost-effective services for the agency, rewarding partners for their participation with access to advanced R&D and the potential for lucrative contracts in the future.

Welcome to SpaceFlight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: SpaceFlight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightIns

НК – Vector Wolverine от Vector Space

Spaceflightinsider partners

Mass To Orbit
45 kg to 28 degree orbit
35 kg to 98 degree orbit

Propellants
Oxidizer: Liquid Oxygen
Fuel: Advanced Propylene

Engines
1st Stage: 3x 5000lb
2nd stage: 1x 800 lb
Pressure fed / no pumps

Launch Sites
Kodiak AK: 90-100 degree orbits
Cap Canaveral FL: 28-58 degree orbits

Launch Rates
IOC: 12 per year
FOC: 100/year

Structures
Carbon Fiber
7X Reduction In Parts Count
Reusable First Stage

Payload Accommodation
1U, 3U, 12U without dispensers
Micro/Small satellites

Size
12m tall x 1.1m diameter
685 kg Dry Mass / 5100 kg GLOW

Reusability
Demonstrated reusable 1st stage
Parachute / UAV Recovery
Post flight refurbishment

Prototype suborbital flight

Vector lift mass from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska (PSCA).

Vector lift mass from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska (PSCA) with the optional electric third stage which launches to a 200-250 km circular orbit and raises the inserted satellite mass to desired orbit altitude with minimal mass required.

Fairing volume. Dimensions are in inches.

Цитата
Tiny rocket company aims for 100 launches a year—and it just might succeed
Vector Space Systems completes a successful test flight and has its first customer.

Eric Berger – 8/2/2016, 6:05 PM

Alone in the Mojave desert, the tiny rocket stood barely as tall as a basketball goal backboard. Launch control was a laptop inside a nearby bunker, and the small gathering of aerospace engineers and investors seemed almost like a rocket hobby club as it watched the vehicle soar to about 5,000 feet before parachuting back to Earth. But this scene may have represented something much more than that. With its small-scale test Saturday, the company Vector Space Systems took another step toward upending the rapidly expanding small satellite launch market.
Not since the Germans and their V-2 rockets during World War II has anyone launched more than a few dozen of the same rockets per year. Now, within about five years Vector intends to launch as many as 100 of its 13-meter-tall Wolverine vehicles annually, with a capability to put a 50kg satellite into low-Earth orbit. The company aims to fill a niche below the current generation of launchers being developed by companies such as RocketLab and Virgin Galactic, with rockets capable of delivering 200 to 250kg satellites to low-Earth orbit.
So far, it seems like a good bet. On Tuesday morning, Vector announced that it has acquired its first customer, Finnish-based Iceye, to conduct 21 launches of the company’s commercial synthetic aperture radar satellite constellation. “Getting your satellite into orbit is one of the biggest challenges for new-space companies, but there just isn’t the launch capacity right now,” Iceye Chief Executive Rafal Modrzewski said in a news release.

Small satellites, big market
The two companies are already working together. According to Jim Cantrell, chief executive of Vector Space Systems, Saturday’s test flight in Mojave, California, carried a prototype of an Iceye microsatellite core computing and communications systems to see if it would survive launch conditions (it did). Vector’s sub-scale launcher, named the P-20, also tested some prototype upper stage engines.
The test will help Vector finalize design of its Wolverine rocket, which is based upon technology fr om Garvey Spacecraft Corporation. The two-stage rocket will be powered by liquid fuels, and it’s made of all composites. Gross liftoff weight is 5 tons. Vector intends to offer small satellite companies the capability to launch within three months of demand into any desired orbit from Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska or Cape Canaveral in Florida. Launch costs will range from $2 million to $3 million (£1.5 to £2.2 million).
Vector is betting on demand to grow for constellations of satellites that are 50kg or smaller, which may include a configuration of several cubesats. Right now these customers have to share rides on larger launch vehicles, and in an interview with Ars, Cantrell said the primary payload determines when and wh ere the satellites get released in space. “It’s almost like they are children sitting at the table, to be spoken to and not heard, and to wait until the parents are gone before they can be dropped off,” Cantrell said.
Vector expects companies to be enticed by the opportunity to determine when they launch and what orbit they’re delivered to in space. The company can also offer a consistent launch interface on the same rocket every time. With that approach, Vector may be proven right. In addition to Iceye, Cantrell is in discussions with four other satellite constellation companies. “I’ll be honest, it’s going better than I ever thought,” he said. “It’s been surprising. The customer response to this vehicle has been tremendous. It’s conceivable we could have a full manifest in short order.”

More than a paper rocket
In reality, Vector is aiming to become the first mass-produced rocket company. SpaceX, on a good year, now launches a dozen times per year. It is seeking to double that total in 2017 or 2018 with its much larger Falcon 9 rocket. But with this much smaller, 13-meter-long rocket that can fit inside a semi-trailer, Vector believes it can increase the sale of launch much further. Instead of clearing millions of dollars per launch from a few launches a year, the company intends to make money by flying a lot. “The economics are different with the micromarket,” Cantrell said. “We’re looking at creating a fundamentally different business proposition than anyone else is looking at.”
Vector remains on track for its first orbital launch in 2018, Cantrell said, and the company aims to increase the launch cadence to about 100 vehicles per year by 2020 or 2021. Perhaps the biggest issue is range constraints—making sure the company has clearance from launch site officials. While Vector may do some launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, it will primarily operate from Alaska, which has a much less crowded range. That works out well, Cantrell said, because many of the polar orbits desired by customers are easier to reach from northern latitude launch sites.
For now, those remain big dreams. A contract from Iceye may validate Vector’s business plan and technical ideas for the Wolverine rocket, but Vector must still grow its small test rocket into the full-size model, and it must fly from 5,000 feet all the way into space. “The first thing we have to do is show the world we’re not a paper rocket,” Cantrell acknowledged.









Цитата
Brian Berger ‏@ Berger_SN 6 ч.6 часов назад
Garvey: Vector can stay alive on 12 launches a year. Schneider: Rocket Lab “will survive on well less than 12 a year.” # WSBR

Brian Berger ‏@ Berger_SN 6 ч.6 часов назад
Garvey: Vector still debating whether minimum launch rate is 12x or 24x a year. # WSBR

Brian Berger ‏@ Berger_SN 6 ч.6 часов назад
Vector & Virgin Galactic counting on customers to pay more per kilogram for schedule certainty and a better ride. # WSBR

Цитата
Vector Space Systems Announces $60M Agreement with York Space Systems
Partnership extends micro satellite launch capabilities and reduces cost to manufacture spacecraft, eliminating barriers for entrepreneurs
News provided by
Vector Space Systems
Oct 17, 2016, 10:00 ET

TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 17, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Vector Space Systems , a micro satellite space launch company comprised of new-space industry veterans from SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, McDonnell Douglas and Sea Launch, today finalized an agreement with York Space Systems , an aerospace company specializing in small and medium class spacecraft, to conduct six satellite launches from 2019 through 2022 with the option for 14 additional launches. The first launch through the agreement will also be the inaugural launch of the Vector-H vehicle, which is capable of launching 100 kg into orbit, and will provide an integrated spacecraft to customers through a standardized platform.
York Space Systems will use the launches with Vector Space Systems to place their standardized S-Class satellite platform into orbit for commercial and government customers. York Space Systems’ satellites will also employ the unique Electric Upper Stage which uses Vector Space Systems’ propriety electric propulsion technology as the final insertion stage of the Vector-H to place the satellites into orbital altitudes up to 1000 km with zero loss of launch throw mass capability.
“Since our launch earlier this year, Vector has made it a priority to engage with partners who share our mission of making space more accessible to a new generation of innovators, and York Space Systems is a shining example of this type of partner,” said Jim Cantrell, CEO and co-founder of Vector Space Systems. “By leveraging Vector’s low cost launch vehicle family, York Space Systems will now be able to offer more frequent low cost space access opportunities for new missions and data gathering missions, furthering our mission to eliminate the barriers for startups and entrepreneurs.”
York Space Systems currently focuses on small and medium spacecraft supporting a wide range of missions, including visible Earth Observation (EO), Infrared EO, Multispectral EO, Synthetic Aperture Radar EO, asset tracking, weather, communications, signals intelligence, and robotic servicing. The S-Class platform leverages a proprietary design to reduce the cost of manufacture by an order of magnitude, and will see first flight qualification Q3 2017. The platform design can utilize existing ride-share opportunities, and is simultaneously being designed for compatibility with dedicated small launch vehicles, such as the Vector-H. With an inventoried approach, York offers next day delivery supporting the rapid mission program timelines enabled by Vector.
“In this day and age, complementary capabilities and expertise for fielding space-based products and solutions for customers is hard to find,” said Dirk Wallinger, CEO of York Space Systems. “Vector is rapidly pioneering low cost rapid launch capabilities, and together we can bring the reality of space exploration to a broader array of commercial and government customers through the engineered compatibility of the S-class satellite platform and the Vector-H. We want to provide the next great ideas, with a turn-key space solution. Our work with Vector will help us do just that.” He continued, “Ultimately dedicated responsive launch is a game-changer, it allows us to completely rethink our architectural approaches to space, and opens the skies to the Space data frontier. We are excited to be a part of that, and happy to be partnered with Vector towards that goal.”

News – Resources, Sierra Nevada Corporation, SNC

Sierra Nevada Corporation | SNC Sierra Nevada Corporation | SNC

News &
Resources

Media Contact

SNC’s DVE Technology Mitigates Risk of Operating Helicopters in Bad Weather Conditions such as Fog

SNC said DVE technology already selected for U.S. military helicopters, can also reduce the risk of civil and commercial flight crashes, in cases where visibility is impeded due to weather and other conditions such as fog.

In the News: When Seconds Count

Sierra Nevada Corporation is bringing its military tested eHealth and remote monitoring solution to civilian air medical operations to help save time and lives.

In the News: NASA-Backed ‘Dream Chaser’ Spaceplane is Unlike Any Other Spacecraft

Video summary: This spacecraft is the stuff of space dreams! The state-of-the-art Dream Chaser is the only spacecraft NASA currently funds that can move within the atmosphere, and that’s just the beginning.

In the News: Five Features That Make Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser Spaceplane Unique

Dream Chaser is something different. It is a lifting body with winglets that can land on any runway in the world measuring at least 10,000 feet in length. In fact, with retirement of the Space Shuttle nearly a decade ago, Dream Chaser is the only spacecraft NASA currently funds that is capable of maneuvering within the atmosphere.

In the News: Dream Chaser on Track for 2021 Cargo Mission, Crew Within 5 Years

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is on track for the first cargo flight of its Dream Chaser spacecraft next year.

In the News: Astronaut Kavandi’s new mission

Janet Kavandi arrived at the Space Systems headquarters of Sierra Nevada Corp. in September to lead its space work as senior vice president of programs. Space Systems is in the midst of a growth plan as it prepares to launch cargo to the space station and is vying for roles in human spaceflight.

In the News: Soldiers Train in Mass Casualty Scenarios to Test New Medical Communication Device

The Army’s newest medical communication device is just one study away from being procured and fielded – the Medical Hands-free Unified Broadcast, or MEDHUB.

In the News: Colorado-built Dream Chaser, successor to the space shuttle, turning into reality

Production of a successor to NASA’s space shuttle will get underway in Colorado and will be overseen by a former U.S. Air Force pilot and astronaut who piloted two shuttle flights and commanded another three.

In the News: USS Kearsarge Transits The Suez Canal With Anti-Drone Buggies Keeping Watch On Deck

If the target is deemed unfriendly, a Modi jammer can be turned on to target and break the data-link between the drone and its controller on the ground.

Sierra Nevada Corporation Signs Two NextSTEP-2 Contracts with NASA

SNC has formalized its agreement with NASA under Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2), signing a contract to design and develop a prototype for a deep space habitat.

Sierra Nevada Corporation’s STPSat-5 Satellite Completes Ground Compatibility Testing

SNC’s Space Test Program Mission 5 (STPSat-5) satellite moved another step closer to launch, successfully completing its Factory Compatibility Test with NASA’s Near-Earth Network and the NASA Ames Multi-Mission Operations Center.

Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser ® Spacecraft Passes Major NASA Milestone after Free-Flight Test

SNC’s Dream Chaser program passed a major NASA milestone for its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) contract with the completion of a successful Free-Flight test, which produced subsonic flight and landing performance data

EOSTEO – Calm Technologies

Calm Technologies

Enhanced OSTeoporosis Experments on Orbit (eOSTEO)

The effect of gravity on bone loss is a key area of interest for the space community, particularly since up to 10 per cent of an astronaut’s bone mass can be lost in a three-month mission. With space exploration targeting longer duration missions at farther destinations, understanding the biological mechanisms and finding countermeasures to astronaut bone loss has been identified as a priority not only within Canada’s Scientific Community, but also for that of its international partners. The United States has specifically identified astronaut bone loss as a key area for research in its forward plan, and continued collaborations with Canada have demonstrated this as a priority for the European Space Agency as well.

OSTEO set the benchmark for Canadian bone research on orbit, flying two missions on the Shuttle. Following its success with the first mission on STS-95 with John Glenn, the OSTEO payload was flown a second time on the tragic Columbia STS-107 mission. Complementing the OSTEO payload containing Canadian science on STS-107 was a second OSTEO payload containing the European ERISTO experiments.

eOSTEO raised the benchmark through full automation, higher media capacity, waste media sampling, and better preservation of the biological samples prior to return to earth. Two eOSTEO payloads flew on the Russian FOTON-M3 mission, launched on a Soyuz rocket in 2007. Six experiments in 24 bioreactor modules were flown during this mission, containing research from Canada, France and Italy. eOSTEO is now poised for upgrade, to allow it to take up residence on ISS for future bone loss experiments. Watch for exciting new opportunities in this field of research through eOSTEO’s ongoing legacy, and with the next generation of cell culture payloads, CCAP.

Recent News

Effective immediately, all sales, service and support for the SEAM line of electrode testers and associated equipment is now being handled by QC Integrated Services.

Kickstarter launched
Swidget, the Smart Home targeted wall outlet represents the final product adoption of the patented COMPORT system. Please check us out on Kickstarter and pledge you support

SpaceX’s Dragon cargo spacecraft splashed down in the Pacific Ocean at 12:42 p.m. EDT Thursday with almost 3,100 pounds of NASA cargo from the International Space Station, including research on how spaceflight and microgravity affect the aging process and bone health (Osteo-4)

An article, by Spaceflight Insider, talking about the importance of the Osteo-4 payload to osteoporosis research:

Lowell Misener, President of CALM Technologies, had a talk about Osteo-4 with Wei Chen of CBC Radio One’s Ontario Morning. Below is the link to the Ontario Morning Podcast. Lowell’s interview begins at 06:18 and concludes at 11:33. Enjoy!

On January 26, 2015 Calm was awarded a contract to build and support hardware for the European Space Agency project InVitro Bone (#4000112839/14/NL/FC). This involves the manufacture of the flight proven Osteo-4 design and support for flight qualification. The future InVitro Bone mission is targeting 2017.

To see the Kingston Whig Standard article on CALM Technologies and Osteo-4 click the link below:

From the NASA website highlighting Space Station Research, an article titled: Scientists Make No Bones about First Study of Osteocytes on Space Station. Great photo of the Osteo-4 Team!

Watch the launch video of the SpaceX CRS-6 mission carrying the Osteo-4 Payload aboard the Dragon capsle on the Falcon9 rocket.

CRS-6 Prelaunch Science Panel – With Paola D. Pajevic, principal investigator, Osteocytes and Mechanomechano-transduction (Osteo-4), Massachusetts General Hospital.

NASA Selects Commercial Space Partners for Collaborative Partnerships – SpaceFlight Insider, Science News

Science News. Com

Home »Unlabelled » NASA Selects Commercial Space Partners for Collaborative Partnerships – SpaceFlight Insider

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

NASA Selects Commercial Space Partners for Collaborative Partnerships – SpaceFlight Insider

On Tuesday, Dec. 23 NASA announced that the space agency had tapped four aerospace firms to further its efforts to develop new space capabilities. What NASA has called the Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC ) initiative, in an unfunded agreement with these companies to further the agency’s various commercial efforts and is meant to utilize the experience and the private sector’s infrastructure to attempt to create new technologies.

The CCSC is designed to help the private space sector in the development of integrated space capabilities by allowing these companies to have access to technologies and resources that NASA has created and honed during the first half-century since its formation in October of 1958. The four company’s that NASA has selected

* ATK Space Systems, in Beltsville, Maryland, is developing space logistics, hosted payload and other space transportation capabilities.
* Final Frontier Design, in Brooklyn, New York, is developing intra-vehicular activity space suits.
* SpaceX, in Hawthorne, California, is developing space transportation capabilities that could be used to support missions into deep space.
* United Launch Alliance, in Centennial, Colorado, is developing new launch vehicle capabilities to reduce cost and enhance performance.

“Companies in all shapes and sizes are investing their own capital toward innovative commercial space capabilities,” said Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight development at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “These awards demonstrate the diversity and maturity of the commercial space industry. We look forward to working with these partners to advance space capabilities and make them available to NASA and other customers in the coming years.”

NASA has encountered success with some of its commercial ventures. Image Credit: NASA /SpaceX

NASA has stated that the agency hopes that these companies will develop products and services which will be available within the next five years or so.

To help accomplish this under the restrictive budget that the space agency currently operates under, NASA and the four companies noted above will work under unfunded Space Act Agreements (in short, no money will exchange hands, but these companies will instead have access to NASA resources and experience). While it might not seem like much to the outsider, for the newer companies involved with this effort, this is a windfall in terms of access and information.

NASA brings more than five decades worth of spaceflight experience to the table and each of these companies will gain access to technical expertise, assessments, technologies, data as well as lessons learned through trial and error – that they simply cannot find anywhere else. For NASA, these types of agreements are also beneficial as they incur no cost and provide the agency with synergistic experiences that keep the agency flush with new concepts and methodologies.

Public-private agreements such as CCSC are all the rage with NASA, with the agency sponsoring the following in just the past few years alone:

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services – Kick started NASA’s efforts to have private companies deliver cargo to the International Space Station.

Commercial Resupply Services – Operational initiative to ferry cargo, experiments and supplies to the ISS. To date, six missions have traveled to the orbiting laboratory and carried some 19,052 lbs (8,642 kg) worth of cargo and supplies to the only current destination in low-Earth orbit.

Commercial Crew Program – NASA’s effort to cede transportation of astronauts to the ISS.

Lunar CATALYST – Initiative to develop a commercial robotic lunar lander.

Under its current directive, NASA has not only been tasked with enabling commercial companies to handle some of the responsibilities that the agency has handled for its first fifty years. After a hiatus of more than four decades, NASA will now attempt to return to the business of sending astronauts to destinations in deep space. The space agency is hoping to send a crew to an asteroid by 2024 and missions to Mars sometime in to 2030s.

Welcome to SpaceFlight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: SpaceFlight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightIns