It is important to recognize that Daystrom Institute is a curated space. We have much stricter rules than typical internet discussion boards, designed to encourage deep-dive analysis and thoughtful discussion throughout our community.

Our rules, listed on the sidebar, give an overview of what Daystrom Institute contributors should and should not do. This post is designed as a slightly more detailed guide, for anyone entering our community from elsewhere and looking to join the discussion.

These rules are not arbitrary, but built up over ten years of trial and error at reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute. That said, they can and will change over time, as the needs of different circumstances, communities, and platforms shift.

What kinds of comments can I make here?

In general, any comment which seeks to further civil discussion of Star Trek is appropriate. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Attempting to answer a question
• Proposing a counterargument to another user's point
• Asking a relevant followup question
• Mentioning a relevant piece of evidence and connecting it to a previous point

What kinds of comments are not permitted here?

First off, rudeness in any form is unacceptable in Daystrom. We expect all commenters to be polite and diplomatic to each other under all circumstances. Among other things, this rules out insults, snarky behavior, and passive aggressive attempts to get the last word. If someone is being rude to other posters, do not "fight back". Report them and move on; we will deal with the problem.

Additionally, there are many types of comments which are appropriate elsewhere on startrek.website and most other corners of the internet at large, but are not acceptable in Daystrom. They include:

• Dismissing the validity of someone else's post or comment. This includes declaring a point invalid because it references shows which are non-canonical or which you simply don't like. Alternately, declaring that "the writers didn't think about it" or "Q did it" are so banal as to be worthless: if that's all you have to say, don't say anything.
  • Note: this does not preclude discussing the show or answering questions from an out-of-universe perspective. Such comments are encouraged provided they are thoughtful and constructive, and not an excuse to devalue another poster's contribution.
• Asserting something without explaining your reasoning. If it's worth mentioning at all, it's worth telling us why you believe it to be true.
• Sharing an opinion without further explanation. Your opinion is not interesting to other people, unless you can explain why you hold that opinion in a substantive way.
• Whinging: If you want to express a negative opinion about a show, a writer, a cast member, etc, that is permitted provided that (like any other content) it is substantive, constructive, and relevant. "Burnham sucks" is never appropriate, while a longwinded explanation of how Michael Burnham is an overpowered character is appropriate in a discussion about how the Michael Burnham character is written, but not appropriate in a discussion of (for example) how the Spore Drive works which happens to mention Michael Burnham.
• External links (such as to blogs or videos) without context. If it's worth sharing, it's worth explaining what it is and why it's relevant.
• Memes, image macros, gifs, and other examples of visuals intended to deliver a joke.
• One-off jokes in any other form.

Wait, we can't tell jokes here?

Injecting humor into a post or comment which would stand alone as an acceptable submission without the joke is acceptable: humor can be very effective for making a point. However, any submission which exists primarily to deliver a punchline is not appropriate.

But what if it's really, really funny?

Fun police here. Sorry, still no. If your joke can stand alone, it's perfect for /c/Risa. If not, hang on to it for next time the topic comes up on /c/StarTrek and dazzle us all then.

If these rules seem overly harsh to you, that's okay. The other communities on startrek.website are much less stringent, intentionally, and we encourage you to go there for shitposting and more casual Trek discussion. That's the benefit of specialized spaces: if this one doesn't seem like a fit for you personally, one of the others should.

One of the fascinating things about this "third generation" of Star Trek (starting either with Star Trek 2009 or with Discovery) is the way the Star Trek universe has started to knit itself closer together by referencing existing backstory. For example, Discovery wholeheartedly embraced the idea that Andorians and Tellarites are key Federation members and should therefore be highly visible in Starfleet, building on lore originally implied in TOS, largely ignored by TNG, DS9, and VGR, and re-embraced by ENT. Prodigy, for its part, leaned very heavily on VGR for its worldbuilding source material.

This has also produced some interesting quiet exclusions from recent stories -- not to suggest they've been "decanonized" or anything like that, but clearly have been deprioritized. The Tholians come to mind as a ready example of this. Like the Gorn, they debuted in TOS, received stray mentions in DS9, before making an on-screen return in ENT. I wonder if the SNW writers considered using the Tholians but balked at a villain that had such different atmospheric requirements, and all the consequences that entails in terms of dramatic presentation. The Denobulans also seem to fall into a similar bucket; outside of a pair of appearances in PRO, they have received nary a mention since ENT.

Then of course we have the lengthy list of "one-off" civilizations, including the likes of

-the Sheliak
-the Husnock
-the Tzenkethi
-the Jarada
-the Miradorn

And in terms of "underexplored corners", I've only been focusing on the civilizations, but there are any number of other corners we could poke into. The Department of Temporal Investigations, the Corps of Engineers, the Federation Council, the Lunar Colonies... the Trekverse is littered with these little crumbs all over the place -- tiny seeds of ideas that suggest opportunities for imagination.

For my part, I would love to learn more about the Sheliak. For one thing, they seem like they would benefit from the advances in CGI over the last 30 years. But I like that they seem equally matched to the Federation in terms of strength, and that their hyperfocus on legal compliance gives them a generally underused "hat" to wear in the Trekverse. They have some similarity to Vulcans, but taken to an extreme, and layered in with real disdain for "lower life forms" that I think would make for a fascinating "adversary" -- I'd love to see Captain Pike or Captain Seven in a verbal jousting match with a Sheliak commander.

What is an underexplored corner of Trek lore that you think merits exploration?

It's never made much sense that the entire multi-species Federation would be subject to a strict ban on genetic engineering due to events on Earth that happened centuries before the Federation was even founded. The way they doubled down on that rationale in Una's trial only highlighted the absurdity -- especially when Admiral April claimed he would exclude Una to prevent genocide.

On the one hand, the writers may be trying to create a straw man out of a weird part of Star Trek lore so they can have a civil rights issue in Starfleet. And that's fine. From an in-universe perspective, though, I think we can discern another reason for the ban on genetic engineering -- the Klingon Augment Virus.

There was a ban on genetic engineering on United Earth, which is understandable given that it was much closer to the time of the Eugenics Wars. Why would that remain unchanged when more time passed, more species joined, and more humans lived in places without living reminders of the war? [NOTE: I have updated the paragraph up to this point to reflect @Value Subtracted's correction in comments.] The answer is presumably that they needed to reassure the Klingons that something like the Augment Virus would never happen again. Hence they instituted a blanket ban around that time -- perhaps in 2155, the year after the Klingon Augment Virus crisis and also, according to Michael Burnham, the year the Geneva Protocols on Biological Weapons were updated.

That bought the Federation over a century of peace, but after war broke out due to a paranoid faction of Klingons who thought humans would dilute Klingon purity and after peace was only secured through the most improbable means, they doubled down on the ban. Una's revelation provided a perfect opportunity to signal to the Klingons that they were serious about the ban -- hence why they would add the charges of sedition, perhaps. Ultimately, an infinitely long speech and the prospect of losing one of their best captains combined to make them find a loophole -- but not to invalidate the ban or call it into question. This Klingon context is why April, who we know is caught up in war planning of various kinds, is so passionate that the ban exists "to prevent genocide" -- he's not thinking of people like Una, he's thinking of the near-genocide they suffered at the hands of the Klingons.

This theory still doesn't paint the Federation in a positive light, since they have effectively invented a false propaganda story to defend a policy that has led to demonstrable harm. But it makes a little more sense, at least to me. What do you think?

The Galaxy class starship was designed with the ability to separate the saucer from the stardrive section, so that the "floating city" part of the ship could be left somewhere safe while the rest of the ship galavants off to do something risky. We see this happen precisely once, in the season one episode Arsenal of Freedom. We also see saucer separation deployed for a handful of tactical and or emergency uses (such as against the Borg in The Best of Both Worlds, or to escape the breaching warp core in Generations).

So, this seems like a useful ability to have, and the Enterprise is constantly being sent into dangerous situations. Why not use this ability more frequently?

To say Discovery has been "controversial" would be something of an understatement. From the very beginning the show sparked off considerable debate about it's quality, and the bevy of showrunner changes and resulting shifts in tone and plot choices just adds an extra layer of confusion. Many of the same groups and same people continue to have very similar arguments over what is clearly a completely different show in 2023 than it was in 2017. Personally I've become frustrated to the point of disinterest about where this show has gone, which makes it all the more exciting to go back and (re)discover something I thought I knew but had begun to really wonder about:

The very beginnings of Discovery are fucking excellent television.

Here's why.

Early Discovery was actually planned out

To start with, the pacing and plotting of both the individual episodes and the overall arc of the season are excellent. In the moment, they are delightfully seamless: pacing is brisk but not rushed, traversing from one important thing to the next, with emotional moments given an appropriate amount of time to be registered and felt without feeling drawn out. Each episode has a clear beginning, middle, and end, with individual stakes that matter beyond simply advancing the season plot. Of course they consistently advance the overall season plot too (with the exception of Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad, which is "merely" a wonderfully executed standalone sci fi story that significantly develops three of our main characters). They do so not by dropping largely inconsequential teases and misdirection in alleged pursuit of a goal fated for resolution only in the finale, but via bite sized, meaningful changes to the circumstances our heroes find themselves in.

This demonstrates something which is clearly absent from the subsequent seasons, and even tossed away before the end of this one: detailed long term planning. Not only are we spared the bizare shifts in background information (is the Red Angel suit hyper advanced future tech, or something a research team banged out 20 years ago? Is the 32nd century Federation tiny, isolated, and largely ignored, or are they active galactic participants with genuine political clout?), but it's also critical for allowing the episodes to flow neatly together as a coherent story. There's been plenty of debate about if Star Trek should even be trying to tell these long-arc, binge-friendly seasonal stories, but clearly CBS wanted that. So why not do it right?

Early Discovery (mostly) makes sense

Every Star Trek show has had it's share of silly stuff. Obviously TOS was absolutely loaded with zany things that seem more in keeping with it's cardboard and hot glue aesthetics than the more serious tone subsequent shows attempted to set, but even the best of TNG era Trek had some whoppers mixed in. Where it has succeeded is by keeping most of the wacky missteps in relatively unimportant places, encapsulated by single episodes and devoid of larger consequence.

Then there's the tech which every Starfleet ship is totally reliant on, most of which has only a fleeting connection to real world physics. The Mycelial Network blends right in: it's a pretty wild idea and most certainly is not real. Just like warp drive. And just like warp drive, it is at least based on something real. Ehh, close enough.

I have little desire to relitigate in depth the plausibility of S2/S3 Burnham being intimately connected to so many wildly disparate galaxy changing things, or how reasonable it is to have a emotionally distraught child trigger a galactic cataclysm that nobody could solve for over a century, but I'll certainly contend that early Discovery's WTF rate is more in line with TNG era Trek than it's more recent seasons have been. A low bar? Sure. But a relevant one.

Early Discovery did good job developing characters

By the end of those nine episodes, we've had a reasonable detailed introduction to six main characters, and all of them have at least a little extra dimensionality to them, enough that they feel real and as presented, I do care what happens to them:

Burnham is our focusing lens for the story and certainly gets the most screen time, but she's also far from the most important person on the ship. We know she's a proficient officer, but also that she fucked up royally with massive repercussions in the opening acts of the show. That dichotomy lines up well with her odd mix of behaviors: conflicted about how much she deserves the second chance she was thrust into, yet supremely confident in her own abilities. Highly empathetic towards the Tardigrade, yet unhesitant and unapologetic in manipulating Saru into being a walking danger meter. There's clearly major unresolved trauma there, and I'd like to see this person develop more naturally from here. She should have her redemption, but she'll need to earn it: not through one grand gesture of genocide refusal, but by demonstrating over time that she is dealing with her demons, and really has learned from the disaster at the binaries.

Speaking of the most important people on the ship, Stamets is chief among them. He has neither the desire nor the mentality to be a warrior, and yet he serves an irreplaceable and absolutely critical role in what has clearly become a ship of war. He's a jerk when we first meet him, but his military necessitated chance to get close and personal with his research shows us a softer side, and likely changed him in ways that we're just starting to see develop. Culber is still mostly one-note, but as a couple they play very well off each other.

Saru has a decidedly alien mentality for a military officer, but is clearly good at what he does. He is both thoughtful and candid about his past and present conflicts with Burnham, and his stint as acting captain in Choose Your Pain showed considerable growth. I want to see more of this guy learning to command (and I will get some, if less than I'd like).

Tilly is an absolute delight. She has her share of minor and harmless tics, babbling when she's nervous and occasionally blurting things out when excited, and she's vulnerable to getting flustered... but can still pull herself together and do what must be done. She shows an impressive level of emotional intelligence in her interactions with Burnham and Stamets, and she also has the awareness and confidence to identify what she wants in life, and fight for it. That's an incredibly endearing combination, and makes her the emotional heart of the show. Give me more, much more, of Burnham mentoring Tilly up to an eventual captaincy. Maybe Tilly could only reasonably work her way to full Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander over the course of a seven season show, but that would be plenty: I'm not here to see four pips, I'm here to see believable growth in an already sympathetic character.

Lorca and Tyler I'll be touching on later.

(Continued in the comments...)

While some may argue in transparently bad faith that it isn't so, it's obvious to even a casual observer that Star Trek's setting depicts in the Federation a vision of society in which the goals of both the social and economic left wing have largely won out and largely been attained. The people of the Federation have relatively complete equality of race, gender, sexuality, and even species. Resources are abundant and housing, food, shelter, healthcare, education, and beyond even the necessities even most of the pleasures of life are provided to virtually all. The environment is protected and even controlled on many populated planets to protect the ecosystem.

What, then, is at the cutting edge of politics for the Federation? In the interests of disclosure, I have identified as an anarcha-feminist and a pacifist for more than a decade (albeit not a tremendously intellectual one), and my analysis here is based in large part on the issues I believe that, as a civilian living in Star Trek's universe, I would likely have strong positions on.

A few candidates immediately present themselves:

• AI rights. A major theme of 24th-century Star Trek, from the beginning of TNG right up to Picard, is the debate over the rights of artificial intelligences, whether in the form of androids and synths like Data and Soji or photonics like the Doctor, Vic, and Moriarty. Less attention is given to less anthropomorphic forms of artificial intelligence. As we see in Lower Decks, Starfleet and the Daystrom Institute keep rogue AIs such as AGIMUS, Peanut Hamper, and 10111, with no evidence that they received any kind of trial or evaluation. The tragedy of 2385 became a major impediment to AI rights, but after the events of season 1 of Picard they seem to be back on track, at least for Synths. The personhood of photonics and non-anthropomorphic AIs remains up in the air.
• Augment rights. This may be an internally contentious issue. on the one hand, it is clear that genetically-altered individuals are marginalized as of the Dominion War. It is by the narrowest of margins that Bashir avoids being drummed out of Starfleet for being the recipient of a medical procedure he had no ability to consent to or refuse, and the Jack Pack are in some ways treated more like inmates than patients. Less than a century and a half before, Illyrians were persecuted and La'an Noonien Singh faced bullying as a child for being the distant descendant of Khan. However the memory of the Eugenics Wars looms large in the human imagination and genetic augmentation may still be viewed by some as inherently hierarchical.
• Humanocentrism and Vulcan Supremacy. Azetbur's remarks on the Federation as a "Homo sapiens-only" club are not strictly true, but they're not strictly unfounded either. The Federation's capital has always been Earth, Starfleet's headquarters are on Earth, Earth seems to have more colonies than any other member world (and stay tuned while we discuss that further), Humans make up the bulk of Starfleet (even on the Cerritos, by far the most species-diverse ship shown in Trek canon, the majority of the crew seem to be human), Federation Standard is closely descended from English, and four out of six Federation Presidents named or depicted across Star Trek canon are either human or of partial human ancestry. Vulcans, meanwhile, are frequently openly prejudiced against other species and seem to face little opprobrium for being so. This is more prominent in the 22nd and 23rd century, with anti-human terrorism on Vulcan, Spock's childhood bullying, and Starfleet even declaring entire vessels (such as the Intrepid) Vulcan-only; but it still seems to be present in the 24th and even, in some respects, as far ahead as the 32nd century.
• Seceding worlds (and the Maquis.) Unlike the United States of America, which had a whole civil war over the matter, Federation member worlds, and even colonies, appear to have the right to withdraw Federation membership. Aside from the Cardassian Border colonies that produced the Maquis rebellion, Turkana IV is perhaps the most prominent example in the 24th century. We know later in history most of the Federation's worlds, including Earth, Ni'Var, and Andoria, will secede as well in the aftermath of the Burn, and there are some indications that M'Talas Prime may be ex-Federation by the time of Picard. Turkana IV and M'Talas prime serve as an effective demonstration of exactly why this might become a progressive issue: neither seems to have thrived without the Federation, and the Maquis secession resulted in years of violence ending in mass murder on the part of the Dominion. On the other hand making Federation membership irrevocable is not exactly respectful of the sovereignty of those worlds' people. This is likely an issue that sees divided perspectives.
• Expansionism and Imperialism. This may be another controversial one. It is undeniable that the Federation is expansionist, always settling new worlds, welcoming new members, and pushing its borders outwards. As an organization Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Before is a central element of Starfleet's mission. However it is clear that one of the key goals of the Prime Directive^1^ is in ensuring that this expansion does not come at the expense of sovereign indigenous civilizations. Nevertheless, we often see the citizens of other polities feel their people are pressured, or even subtly coerced, to join the Federation, especially in DS9. It is not hard to believe that these concerns are shared by at least some Federation citizens.
• Social issues in neighboring societies. It is clear that many of the Federation's neighbors do not place as high a value on the rights of the individual or of the people as do the Federation, from Ferengi misogyny to Klingon classism to Cardassian totalitarianism. This is the opposite side of the coin from the prior issue, and it seems like the dominant strain of thought in the Federation is to pursue a policy of not intervening even in other advanced societies in the name of inalienable rights, or even providing more than token support to internal resistance movements much of the time (witness the struggles of Bajor, for instance.)
• Section 31. It remains unclear how much of the existence of Section 31, particularly in its modern form, is known to the public. However if it is known, an organization willing to violate the Federation's every high-minded principle in the ruthless pursuit of protecting its interests is doubtless a fraught subject. If their existence only became public knowledge after the fact of their indiscretions, one could easily imagine it being a scandal that tarnishes entire governments.
• Criminal Justice. While crime is no longer as widespread as it is in our own time due to lack of deprivation, the Federation still practices a form of carceral justice. Better minds than I discuss elsewhere the matters of police and prison abolition. Here is one 21st-century left-wing cause that hasn't yet become obsolete.
• Militarism. A common criticism of Star Trek is that everything in the Federation seems to revolve around Starfleet. While that's partly a limitation of the nature of the show, it raises the question: how true is it really? And how true do the people of the 24th century perceive it to be? How comfortable are civilians with the prominence of Starfleet?

Please use the comments to offer your own insights, or to suggest any issues I may have overlooked.

^A subject about which liberal and left-wing arguments both for and against are so played out as to be not worth any further mention.

In the finale of Picard Season 3, the Titan, armed with a 100 year old cloaking device, manages to successfully evade detection by the Borg controlled fleet. This raises some questions. How on earth is it that the Titan was able to accomplish this with a seemingly obsolete cloaking device?

I postulate two things, the first is that what we call the cloaking device is merely one component in a whole system of invisibility, and the second is that StarFleet was certainly obeying the letter of the treaty (Pegasus and Section 31 aside) by not developing cloaking technology, but was, in reality, building ships ready to accept cloaking devices at a moment's notice.

What do we know about cloaking devices, and how are they defeated? The cloaking device ties into the ship’s deflector shield control (as per TOS: The Enterprise Incident) and it obtains invisibility in part by bending light around the ship (as per comparison to the Aldean planetary shield in TNG: The Bough Breaks and description from DISL Into the Forest I Go)

However, using the deflector shield to remain unobserved does not necessarily require a cloaking device. As per the opening of TOS: Assignment: Earth, the Enterprise was able to use its defector shield to remain unobserved to 20th century technology.

And there are countless examples of a cloaking device being imperfect. The most famous example is likely Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where a torpedo set to target ionized gas is able to trace down the location of a Bird of Prey, summarized as “The thing has to have a tailpipe.”

But that is not the only example. Detecting energy distortions, subspace radiation, high speed warp signatures from neutrino radiation, and looking for tetryon particles all worked as forms of passive detection. (I will not cover active detection mechanisms such as the tachyon net, as the Borg fleet never deployed them.)

To add to all this, the clocking device is very small. A device about the size and weight of a man can make a ship invisible.

Here I switch to speculation.

First, I suggest that the cloaking device is primarily a computer. It is not the thing which makes the ship invisible - you could plug it into a building and it would not work, unless it has its own projectors. It must be plugged into a ship with a deflector array, to enhance and perfect its ability to make the ship invisible.

Second, the quality of the ship is more important than the quality of the cloaking device. A cloaking device “merely” needs to look at all incoming radiation of all types, and calculate how to move it around the ship for total silence. But it cannot protect against a ship which emits radiation, leaks gas, etc. Thus, a ship designed with high quality shields and high quality emission control will be more stealthy.

Side speculation: The design decision to not use an antimatter core in the first Bird of Prey we see during TOS: Balance of Terror (their power is simple impulse only implies fusion) and the later TNG-era decision to use a forced singularity despite the downsides, may be rooted in the notion that the Romulans felt that emissions from antimatter annihilation were a liability. Selling the Klingons the cloak and not telling them about this problem seems entirely on brand for the Romulan Star Empire.

There is something of an exception here, the phased cloak. A ship out of phase would, presumably, emit radiation which is also out of phase. (Extrapolated from TNG: The Next Phase where Ro shoots Riker in the head and he does not notice.) The phased cloak represented an attempt to fix emission control on a completely new level. But the phased cloak had problems, and is is seemingly a dead end for the ability to fire while cloaked. Plus, research was a treaty violation.

So now we return to the Titan. We know that plugging a 100 year old cloaking device into the Titan produced an invisibility effect which worked admirably. StarFleet may have seemingly kept their commitment to not build ships with cloaking devices, but this was always a hand wave agreement. StarFleet was ready for the day when they needed invisible ships, and having ships ready to accept cloaking devices was seemingly an unspoken but very intentional design consideration.

When the Titan needed to be invisible, she was missing only one piece of the puzzle.

In "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", captains Sisko and Solok form teams of their own crewmen and play a baseball game in one of Quark's holosuites. Unlike most Holosuite programs, the real people involved are extremely spread out, with Rom (in the stands behind home plate) and Dax (climbing the center field fence) at least 450 feet apart at one point, with the dugouts roughly 200 feet apart along the opposite axis. We see the interior of various holosuites in prior episodes and they are nowhere near that large. Does Quark really have close to 100,000 square feet worth of holosuites, or does the holodeck have some special tricks to deal with this sort of situation?

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

Serialized Deep Space 9 Episode Guide

- /u/Darth_Rasputin32898

Introduction

The goal of of this guide is to provide an episode order to watch Deep Space 9 (DS9) that will deliver maximum impact of the series' overall story arcs in a minimum of episodes. My personal motivation in this matter was to introduce someone I know to Star Trek, a person interested in Star Trek who overwhelmingly favors non-episodic story-telling (a fan of HBO's Game Of Thrones). As such, I decided DS9 would be most appropriate.

Put another way, the purpose of this guide is enable new viewers to quickly 'rush' through the DS9 series without losing the benefits of essential plotlines or character development. No prior Trek experience is required, though reference to the 'Background' section may be helpful initially. All you need is simply the patience to sit through about the first and/or second seasons, which are quite abbreviated in this guide (since they're more episodic and generally considered lower quality).

The total number of episodes by my count is 125.

About Spoilers

This is a non-spoiler guide. Spoilers for any given episode will not be used in the Key Points for that episode. Spoilers for episodes may be included in the Key Points for episodes after that episode. These details will be contained in the spoiler code. Here is an example:

SeasonXEpisodeY

So, if you'd seen episode Y of season X, you'd be able to view that spoiler.

Background

The year is 2369. Humans have, over the past three and a half centuries, have made contact with aliens and helped form an interstellar government, the United Federation of Planets (simply, Federation) that is at the time of DS9 one of the major powers of the known galaxy. It is a post-scarcity, democratic, idyllic society dedicated peaceful to contact with other species and other inter-species governments. Its 'navy,' so to speak, is Starfleet, a 'peacekeeping and humanitarian armada,' jointly operated by its members. It is an exploratory organization, and the main focus of all Star Trek.

Unfortunately, most other known interstellar governments are not as peaceable. The chief rivals of the Federation at present are the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and the more recently encountered Cardassian Union. All of these are expansionist military powers, and all of them have been at war with the Federation at some point. (However, the Klingons are now allied with the Federation.)

Anything else important is quite clearly shown in episode 1.

Episode List

Right! On to the episodes at last!

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4

Season 5

This unit has been assigned to recover valuable content submitted by organic units to the reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute wiki. This unit does not claim authorship over the contents of this post.

#Algernon_Asimov's guide to 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'

I've compiled an episode guides for 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'. This shows major milestones and character development - hopefully without giving away too many spoilers.

Whether you want to track the development of Worf during Next Generation, or skip the Wesley-heavy episodes, this is the page for you!

.

.

.

Season 1

Season 2

No worries, we'll figure out how this works someday.