I'm confused with Stardate is in this new series

[Brainsucker]

How can the episode 4 happen in Stardate 3177, episode 5 happen in Stardate 2341, then episode 6 happen in Stardate 1943? Not only that Episode 3 happen in Stardate 1224,3, Episode 2 happen in Stardate 2912,4, Episode 1 happen in 1739.12

This make me very confused. Can anyone explain?

Is episode 3 actually happen before Episode 1, then followed with episode 6, then episode 5, then episode 2 before it goes to episode 4?

But impossible, as according to Spock, episode 5 happen after episode 4. So how Stardate in this series work?

 

[Tuskin38]

It’s just following the example of TOS, which also had inconsistent stardates.

First 2 seasons of DSC did this too.

 

[Jinn]

TOS and Discovery stardates are just random numbers, they don't conform to linear time. I think some people (and possibly non-canon licensed material) rationalize it as stardates also having a spatial component, so if the stardate is lower than the previous one, it's because the ship is farther to the Galactic North or whatever.

ETA:
Gene Roddenberry on stardate:
"In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy."

 

[FederationHistorian]

It something that happened in both TOS and DIS. It’s likely intended to mirror TOS.

Also, have you ever considered watching the episodes in order of stardate if you are trying to watch it chronologically? Maybe its aired out of order on purpose.

 

[Brainsucker]

Well, I don't know. So maybe I should ignore the Stardate things from now on.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wish they'd used Kelvinverse Stardates (as they did at the end of the first episode) but ... yeah, 4 random numbers point more random numbers. It's tradition, I guess

 

[ashleytinger]

It's to drive all of us detail oriented people insane trying to figure it out

But yeah I'm guessing they're just trying to mirror TOS and it's consistent inconsistency with stardates.

Personal theory, during TOS, the stardates move forward with the particular ship's overall mission and then account for time dilation and relative position on the galactic plane, etc. This way you'd have to know general time the ship went out,etc. Sometime after Kirk's 5 year and into TMP and beyond they just kept them going so they're eventually like the TNG stardates.

Again personal headcanon. Take it as you will.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Well, I don't know. So maybe I should ignore the Stardate things from now on.

That's probably your best bet. Stardates were originally meant to sound like a futuristic calendar and nothing more. In a way, it's kind of a technobabble.

 

[TRON JA307020]

I never tried to make sense of it. Its not meant to be anyway. I just like hearing the numbers.

 

[Timofnine]

This is my idea from another thread to bring consistency to the star dating system, however we would need a super computer capable of 3D mapping the entire galaxy in order to implement this system properly. It would probably need a very fast processor and also require quite a lot of RAM. The writers could just ‘guesstimate’ planetary coordinates though if they do not have access to such a computer…

I have already explained a good system for star dates which would work; using the center of the galaxy as the centre of the axis (0), we could have three dimensional coordinates and ‘star dating’. We could have the location of a star system using this weeks planet as example the Majalis system. We find out the x, y, -x and -y location/galaxy coordinates of the planet, we then combine these coordinates with ‘local dates and time’ based on the same units of measurements as we use on Earth, just adjusted for the local planets rotation (days) and orbit (years) around it’s sun. On top of this we add the speed that it takes for the light to travel to the said location (Majalis in this case) from two permanent fixed celestial bodies, measure in light years perhaps. These two celestial bodies would be used as a bench mark in all star dates. One fixed point could be Alpha Centauri and the other Sirius, one could even be the centre of the galaxy? These fixed points could be decided by a *real* astronomer who knows their stuff. Therefore a working star dates system would be:

(x, y, -x, -y) (Local Year, Local Month, Local Day) (Light Years from point A, Light Years from point B)

So the visual format would be 0000, 000000. 00 or any combination/order of the above like we have different date layout orders in different countries on Earth. Of course, this would all be standardized against Earth time, or maybe Vulcan?

My other theory is that the seemingly ‘out of sequence’ and random stardates are actually a secret numerical code!

 

[fireproof78]

How can the episode 4 happen in Stardate 3177, episode 5 happen in Stardate 2341, then episode 6 happen in Stardate 1943? Not only that Episode 3 happen in Stardate 1224,3, Episode 2 happen in Stardate 2912,4, Episode 1 happen in 1739.12

This make me very confused. Can anyone explain?

Is episode 3 actually happen before Episode 1, then followed with episode 6, then episode 5, then episode 2 before it goes to episode 4?

But impossible, as according to Spock, episode 5 happen after episode 4. So how Stardate in this series work?

Did it make sense in older series?

 

[Tuskin38]

Did it make sense in older series?

In TNG onwards, yes and no.

In TNG, the second number in the Stardate represented the Season. So Season 1 was Stardate 41***, Season 2 was 42*** etc.

For DS9 and Voyager, DS9's Stardates started relative to TNG's, and Voyager's relative to DS9.

DS9 started during TNG's 6th season, so DS9's Season 1 Stardates started at 46***.

Voyager Season 1 started during DS9 Season 3, so Season 1 was in the 48*** range.

1000 stardates = one year some how.

 

[C.E. Evans]

With TNG, DS9, and VOY (and maybe LD too), they followed a general pattern of 1000 units=1 year, and it was relatively easy to figure out stardate 41XXX.X was in 2364, stardate 42XXX.X was in 2365 and so on. I think they actually had someone keep track of stardates from episode to episode, and have the TNG movies align with that system as well.

With TOS, while it's true that stardates did hop around quite a bit during the show's three-year run, they started to become slightly--and I mean, only slightly--more consistent (in the sense of being more sequential) towards the end. There's the old story that if you watch TOS by stardate order, then Chekov was definitely on the Enterprise when Khan first appeared and that their encounter happened offscreen.

 

[Tuskin38]

With TNG, DS9, and VOY (and maybe LD too),

Discovery Season 3 also used TNG style stardates. I can't remember if they used any Stardates in Season 4.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Discovery Season 3 also used TNG style stardates. I can't remember if they used any Stardates in Season 4.

Yeah, they continued the system last used in LD, with stardate 865xxx.x being in 3188, but they don't seem to follow the same 1000 units=1 year system, as it didn't move all that much in Season 4 (it was still stardate 865xxx.x in 3190).

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

The first episode of SNW referenced BOTH the DSC / JJverse calendar year stardates AND the random TOS four-digit stardates within minutes of each other. Granted, one was spoken and the other a graphic, but IMO it's evidence that there could be multiple stardate methodologies at play in the prime Trek-verse.

I used to keep better track of the stardates in the DSC era in the Tech threads for each season, but gave up for DSC and SNW because they really don't make any sense. Even the Picard showrunner is on record effectively saying "Meh, whatever". The only one in the current production era that is relatively consistent is ironically the comedy one.

In practice, opening an episode with someone saying "Stardate XXXX point X" is really just an audio cue telling the viewer THIS IS STAR TREK, and in that sense it works. Roddenberry wanted the trope of the Captain's Log as a vague framing device for his storytelling motif, and in return he got decades of nerds like us trying to make sense of it.

Mark

 

[Jedi Marso]

The stardate system is the one thing I've never even tried to make sense of in ST.

Since there is a 'central navigation beacon' in the Federation, perhaps the stardate is a reference time to a pulse sent out from the central navigation beacon. So if you have an adventure next week with a lower stardate than this week, it meant that the ship travelled at warp speed towards the beacon, resulting in a 'lower' stardate wrt to reference pulse being used by the ship.

Or something like that.

Like I said, trying to explain stardates is like trying to explain why the Millennium Falcon is faster for having made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.

 

[C.E. Evans]

PRODUCTION PERSON 1: What was the stardate in this episode?
PRODUCTION PERSON 2: Um, let me check the script--oh, here it is. It was stardate 1943.7...
PRODUCTION PERSON 1: Wait, wasn't it much higher in the previous episode?
PRODUCTION PERSON 2: Only basement dwellers care about stuff like that...I think I'll make it run backwards in the next episode.

 

[F. King Daniel]

HERE is some extreme technobabble about stardates, from the DS9 Millennium novel trilogy. It makes no sense, but sounds very complicated!

 

[Spike730]

They probably can't be bothered to keep track of stardates.