I'll put this question here, although the pages Deneb Kaitos v and Epsilon Bootis III are concerned as well: What about this conjectural information from the Star Trek: Star Charts? It is official, but not canon (which, at the moment, is a guideline here), and fact is: we don't know that Terra Nova orbits Eta Cassiopeiae from any of the series. I don't think this should be included at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 15:59, 3 Jan 2004 (PST)

I don't recall either Deneb Kaitos V or Epsilon Bootis being mentioned in the canon at all. If there had been a mention, I would support a page being there (though not necessarily the data from the Star Charts). As it stands, I agree with there being no need for their inclusion, as with the location of Terra Nova. -- DarkHorizon 16:11, 3 Jan 2004 (PST)
Epsilon Bootis is in fact also known as Izar, but although this might make sense, the connection was never made on-screen. The only thing we know about Treks Izar is that there's a Garth of... ;) -- Cid Highwind 16:32, 3 Jan 2004 (PST)
Agreed. Star Trek Star Charts is not canon. It may have some nice assumptions, and those might be referenced in Notes or Background information sections in articles, but not in the main body. Besides, there are also assumptions in the Charts that are just plain simply wrong or incomplete (like it's Federation members list). -- Harry 12:30, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)

removed from article according to above discussion

--Cid Highwind 22:08, 2 Jun 2004 (CEST)


Would it make sense to move this page to Terra Nova (planet) and create a disambiguation page here? There is the Terra Nova (episode) and this page with content and at least Terra Nova (colony) page linked on the SS Conestoga page. Avron 14:28, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)


Marked this one as a stub. There's a lot of history explained in the episode, and material enough to spawn a page on the Novans and their culture. I'll try to come back to it, but I won't complain if someone beats me to it. --Short Circuit 04:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed to PNA-incomplete, as it looks more then a stub with the pictures I added. :-) This page still deserves alot on the history though. -AJHalliwell 00:51, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Expanded it some, but it still needs work. Off the top of my head, it needs more dates, better detail on surface conditions, a description of the planet's geology (continents and oceans, and which were affected by the meteor strike), and details of the meteor strike itself. --Short Circuit 21:20, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It's 2010, whatcha waiting for?The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
The PNA is long gone......and it seems like most of the changes were made. If you feel some are missing, feel free to add them or start a new section here detailing your concerns.--31dot 19:31, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Inspired by Heavy Gear

This planet is definetly inspired by the planet Terra Nova in the role playing universe Heavy Gear. - Metnever 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


When did it ever say anything about the United Earth Space Probe Agency in that episode, all it ever said was The Space Agency, so maybe that should have its own article. Plus the International Space Agency was another Space Agency why couldn't it have been that one.--UESPA 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How many years?

The article says that landing at Terra Nova took place in 2078. "After five years, UESPA grew interested in repeating the experience. [...] By 2081, relations with Earth became severely strained". Five years after 2078 is 2083, not 2081. Also, why does it authoritatively say that UESPA was involved? -- Connor Cabal 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The UESPA ref is indeed inapropriate. I've tried to correct this some time ago, but I seem to have forgotten one reference. It's fixed now. As for the "2081", my guess would be that someone substracted 70 years from 2151. Not that that offers much of a solution, there was one mention that noone heard of the colony in "over seventy years" so we know it has to be even before '81. :s -- Capricorn 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"It's fixed now." It doesn't appear to be. Still has the 5 years, 2078 and 2081 on there. Can we fix? - May 19, 2010


Where exactly does the date June 23, 2078 come from? And 2069 as a departure date? No one says such during the episode. Is it shown on screen somewhere, perhaps in tiny print on the monitor? It makes much more sense that they left in 2067, arrived in 2076, were living there 5 years before contact was lost in 2081 (70 years before Enterprise arrives). Am I right or what have I missed? There's definitely some inaccuracy. It's either in the source of this 2069, 2078, or in Archer's own words.--Brumagnus 01:02, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

At the very start of the episode, travis is looking through the ship's computer at an orbital photograph of the planet, labeled with that date. He specificaly mentions that "that was their first view of the planet", so it seems likely to be taken on arival, or at least very soon before arival. -- Capricorn 14:47, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, as I suspected. The real problem is that since it is 2078, Archer's words must logically be inaccurate. So which source is the more valid? The computer or Archer? He says they were living there for 5 years before contact was lost in 2081. That's 3 years, not 5. Do you see the problem, Capricorn?--Brumagnus 20:49, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+