‘Star Trek’ Infographic Celebrates 45 Years of Space Exploration

Published 4 years ago by , Updated September 8th, 2011 at 5:34 pm,

star trek original series anniversary Star Trek Infographic Celebrates 45 Years of Space Exploration

It’s hard to believe that only 45 years have passed since the world was officially introduced to the crew of the Starship Enterprise (a.k.a. USS Enterprise, NCC-1701) in Gene Roddenberry’s original Star Trek TV series.

Terms like “phaser” and “red shirt,” as well as phrases such as “Live long and prosper” or “Beam me up, Scotty!” (which was never said on the original Trek show)  are now so commonly used in everyday vernacular that even those who consider themselves anti-Trekkies immediately recognize their significance.

Star Trek icons William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy each turned 80 this year… and yet, they can still send a sci-fi/comic book/all-things-nerdy convention into a frenzy just by showing up and waving at the crowds. Heck, Nimoy doesn’t even have to physically appear in a movie to get people excited (see: his providing the vocals for Sentinel Prime in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). Such is the sustaining power of the Star Trek phenomena.

To commemorate the occasion, we have a well-designed infograpic (courtesy of Space.com) that effectively encapsulates all the major events in Trek history. It also briefly touches on some of the more significant developments in the areas of both real-life space exploration and science-fiction cinems have occurred over the past five decades or so – for additional historic perspective.

Check it out below:

TAGS: Star trek
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I wish news sources, blogs and other entertainment websites would stop touting Trek 2009′s $386 million as some sort of validation that it was good Trek. It’s only relation are the names of characters. Any new Trek film, with new, younger actors and ILM effects, could have easily earned $386 over 21 weeks.

    • I love using the logic of a hypothetical reality to denounce the accomplishments achieved in actual reality.

      • Abrams’ film was a great science fiction yarn. But it wasn’t Star Trek.

  2. Abrams’ Star Trek movie was like a frisbee—fun but not very deep.

  3. What do you expect in 2 hours. The original series had three seasons to tel its story, following series had even more time. The 2009 was good for what it was, a reboot with new actors playing beloved iconic figures. It served more as an intro to a trilogy (I hope) of films.

    • The movie was a great work of marketing.
      As for storytelling… not so much.

      • Basically, the film was created to explain the new actors and premise. Really, that’s all the story was, a validation of its existence.

        • Well, thank goodness Abrams came along with a two-hour movie to “validate” Star Trek’s existence. I guess 40 years of movies and TV series weren’t quite enough.

  4. I was at DragonCon last weekend and the line to see Shatner was out the door and wrapped 2 blocks around the hotel outside. Insane how popular this guy (and this show) still is today. I wasnt a huge fan but its still impressive to see the fans of this show line up for a few seconds with this shows most popular actor.

    • Supposedly he has already been booked for VegasCon 2012. For someone who hated his Star Trek ties, he has sure embraced them now.

  5. 45 years of Shatner excellence

    And not a peep from JJ and bad Robot. Today would have been a pretty good day to announce something to create some buzz but nothing

    As I have said previously, JJ and crew created a franchise and have already killed it with no follow through.

    Bums me out but no one aside from the hardest core dorks (the ones who actually think Next Gen was good and children and a kindergarten should be a on a fleet battleship)will wait 5 years between films
    General public is not going to be there no matter how good it is.

    I am shocked that Paramount has let Bad Robot handle their hottest property in such a fashion

    • I just realized my Star Trek TV/movie collection ends with the death of Kirk. I guess that makes me an original Trekkie. You make a good point but you can’t blame Paramount. They tried many times to reinvent the show according to Roddenberry’s vision. Anyway their distribution rights to Marvel Films has ended with Captain America, they’ll probably need some Trek cash soon to compensate.

    • It’s not a battleship, it’s an exploration cruiser. And your family is at significant less risk where else in this amazing galaxy? What about amusement parks, sailing, hiking, camping,flying to see grandma? Are these examples also too dangerous?

      You do not understand “To boldly go”

      • I do understand that phrase was a split infinitive.

        Sorry, but the whole TNG idea of kids on a starship was weak. Weaker still? Wil Wheaton.

    • It’s not a battleship, it is a ship of exploration. They had an episode where the timeline was changed and the Enterprise was a battleship but it had no children, unless you include Wesley.

      TNG started out shakey but soon became the best Trek series, IMHO. I would still say Kirk was the best captain but for me, TNG was the best series.

      • Nope sorry brother
        it is as much a Battleship as a ship of exploration. Technically the Enterprises have been heavy cruisers. It has enough weaponry to devastate a planet. TNG might have been a Left-Wing feel good Berkeley Trek with a ship that looked like the inside of a Hilton Garden Inn and a social worker with big cans sitting next to the Captain making tactical decisions in battle with him, but the rest of Trek would beg to differ (especially DS9 which was by far the best of the spinoffs)

        Pike told Kirk that Starfleet is a peacekeeping Armada

        • Although saucer separation had been hinted at in TOS, Next Gen was the show that actually showed it. To protect the families, it could be done so the other portion became a true battleship. I’m sure the officers had family approval to be aboard. Danger was always a risk no matter where in the ST future.

        • battleship n’ Any of the largest,most heavily armed and armored class of warship.

          None of the Enterprises in the TV shows or movies, with the noted exception of the Dark Mirror Enterprise, were warships. Can they defend themselves, certainly, but so can any armed civilian-unless you think putting a gun into someones hand makes them a warrior?

          Starfleet is not a military organization. More emphasis on action oriented story arcs created a whole slew of hostile aliens hellbent on destroying Earth and the Federation. Starfleet defended their home like any man would defend his home from an intruder.

          Now I have nothing against the Borg, the Romulans, the Carrdassians, or the Jem’Hedr. They all make fascinating stories. But these guys all have one thing in common, they are coming to us, to Earth. They take the story to us. Just like JJ Abrams brought the new Trek right to our front door. When you do this you take the element of exploration out of the equation.

          The Arrow Emblem on Starships has a meaning that seems unimportant to writers and fans alike; To Boldly Go

          This isn’t Star Wars. This isn’t War of the Worlds. This is Star Trek, and the Trek is Exploration.

          • That is what Bruce Boxleitner pointed out about the latest spate of alien movies, that they all take place on Earth. He (and I) miss the films that take place in space. Of course, he starred in Babylon 5.

        • The Enterprise D always reminded me of the inside of an airport terminal, circa 1979. (Most like Terminal B of Houston’s Bush Intercontinental.)

  6. I personally think that trying to move the Star Trek juggernaut forward solely on a movie every 3-4 years is not the way to do it. As was evidenced by the reboot movie, they had to take a LOT of liberties and leaps of monumental coincidence to condense the gathering of the crew together in a single movie AND try to also tell a story. I think they managed to accomplish exactly that and only that, nothing more.

    The only way to really keep Star Trek alive is to bring it back to TV. It would be successful on the lower channels (lets not talk about Enterprise) but might be more successful if it were produced in a similar fashion to Game of Thrones (i.e. for a payed cable channel)

    • As a Trek fan i loved the 2009 movie, thought it was great and badly needed to help revive the franchise after the crap that was Voyager. Cannot understand people disliking the latest film.

      • Abrams film wasn’t star trek, no trek fan would call it that. That was s*** trek. The loser himself said he wasn’t a star trek fan, and just wanted to make a movie that wouldn’t just appeal to trek fans. What bs for Paramount to pull on us, we kept star trek alive for 45 years and this is how they repay our loyalty. Sorry but any true fan would denouce that film and boycot anything else based upon it. I would rather wait another 20 years and have a new series (like Next Gen was to TOS) then have the new star trek take over.

        • Well I’m a big Trek fan and I liked the new movie. Did it have flaws? Sure, but all movies do. The next movie, hopefully, will have exploration in it. And not all Trek movies dealt with exploration; Trek 6 dealt with the Klingon Empire on the brink of destruction while members of the Federation conspired with Romulans and Klingons to stop the truce.

        • Sorry, but from a studio financial viewpoint (and in the end, thats all that matters) the film format is way more successful for Star Trek, than a TV series. Films have to make money, a lot of money (at least double the production), for Paramount to do that with Star Trek they had to make it accessible for all, not just life long Trekkers. I think the film walked that line very well. I doubt there will be a TV series for a very, very long time.

      • @Bailey……I didn’t hate the reboot, I just thought it was ok. As I said, they had to run through a LOT of leaps in coincidence to get the crew we know together. I did like seeing Nimoy again but then I did NOT like the whole Spock/Uhura love thing. That’s not what Spock is all about.

        I also don’t know why people hate so much on Voyager. While I thought the original premise was a bit weak (Lost in Space anyone?) and the pilot episode got off to a silly and somewhat rocky start, I thought the show really came into its own around the time 7 of 9 joined the crew. Lots of interesting character development with her along with the EMH Program, “The Doctor”. I enjoyed it as much as I did watching DS9.

        But why did you mention Voyager without mentioning the exponentially worse ST: Enterprise? Did that one just slip your mind because of how bad it was? Seemed like every week they were “jumping the shark” in some way. Whether it was introducing transporters, having Borg show up or traveling to the mirror universe, they were always pulling things from the past they shouldn’t have just to boost ratings.

        @Kahless…admit it, you were just looking for an excuse to mention Klingons a couple times!

        Well I counter your post with the ultimate in Vulcan musical logic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-MSZSLC5w&feature=related

        • I liked Enterprise (grilling expected), and i would rather watch that than Voyager.

        • Well, Kahless threatened to eat a vat of live gagh unless I mentioned them. And since we share the same body, I don’t think I would like what may, uh, come out. :-D

          And I also enjoyed Voyager; and Enterprise, but to a lesser extent.

  7. I thought the new cast of Star Trek did an amazing job projecting the spirit of the original cast. As to the story, it was Wrath of Khan with Black Hole Device replacing Genesis and Nero in place of Khan.

    Overall it was a very timid display of story telling. The New Star Trek was successful only because the cast were truly digging the opportunity to play these iconic characters and it showed in their performance. They could have been acting on a set crafted from cardboard and crayon and still made it fun to watch them.

    Its too bad their potential will likely never be fully realized because most directors and writers have an aversion to risk.

  8. Thank God shortly after STNG began airing the dropped men in miniskirts costume. LOL

    • Are you sure that was a man/male? :-)