StarDate
- Thread starter Kirk1701A
- Start date
No.
That is, plenty of stardate calculators have been devised, but they don't work, because nobody uses them on creating the stardates that we see on screen. The newest show ST: Discovery is a good example of that, with the first episode exactly defining what Earth date the episode's stardate is supposed to match - and the following episodes then making a complete mess of it, by referring to the passage of time in Earth units but associating that with conflicting stardates that on occasion even go backward!
We can guesstimate, and we can speculate. But anything as mechanistic as a calculator is bound to fail, unfortunately.
Timo Saloniemi
That is, plenty of stardate calculators have been devised, but they don't work, because nobody uses them on creating the stardates that we see on screen. The newest show ST: Discovery is a good example of that, with the first episode exactly defining what Earth date the episode's stardate is supposed to match - and the following episodes then making a complete mess of it, by referring to the passage of time in Earth units but associating that with conflicting stardates that on occasion even go backward!
We can guesstimate, and we can speculate. But anything as mechanistic as a calculator is bound to fail, unfortunately.
Timo Saloniemi
One thing I did find curious is, if we take 1000 units as a year, then we do indeed see five years of TOS in three seasons... as they move sequentially from 1xxx near the start to 5xxx by the end.
Perhaps Stardate originally isn't a measurement of overall space/time, we after all only measure time relative to the cycles of our planet around the sun which is completely irrelevant to a starship in the outer reaches of space, but a much more localized time, relative only to a ship's own voyage, the clock set at zero at the start of her mission. Of course, the movies and spinoffs rather dispute that idea
Perhaps Stardate originally isn't a measurement of overall space/time, we after all only measure time relative to the cycles of our planet around the sun which is completely irrelevant to a starship in the outer reaches of space, but a much more localized time, relative only to a ship's own voyage, the clock set at zero at the start of her mission. Of course, the movies and spinoffs rather dispute that idea
I thought that a fitting tribute to TOS
This is what Pocket Books uses to figure out stardates in the novels.
http://www.hillschmidt.de/gbr/sternenzeit.htm
http://www.hillschmidt.de/gbr/sternenzeit.htm
I think Lance is on to something with his theory as it's similar to one I thought of a while back too! 
JB
JB
Baktag!!!
But why could the calculators on the internet (http://www.batmans.org/link/stardatecalculator.html) calculate it very exactly (at example 47988TNG = Sun, 27 Dec 2370 12:08:08 GMT)?
But why could the calculators on the internet (http://www.batmans.org/link/stardatecalculator.html) calculate it very exactly (at example 47988TNG = Sun, 27 Dec 2370 12:08:08 GMT)?
O know it. It's so good...
The same number as the number of lightyears a fast starship can travel in a year.
Coincidence? I think not.
Yep, that's one of the basic assumptions I used in my TOS timeline.
It's truly fascinating to notice, given how used we are to simply accepting a television season as being a full year of adventures, that TOS' "five year mission" might actually be being told across three seasons... if the change of the first numeral actually does signify a new year...
http://startreklist.blogspot.com/2011/04/list-of-all-star-trek-episodes-sorted.html
Indeed, we're rather well off if we go by the 1000 SD/yr model, as it e.g. separates "Errand of Mercy" and "Day of the Dove" by the required three years of Klingon lip service to Organian Peace Treaty conditions, rather than the less than two of the 1 season/yr model.
And all the five-digit stardate episodes flow smoothly in that model, even if we have to accept e.g. that Neelix in "Homestead" hasn't quite grasped the intricacies of the human concept of "anniversary". Although there are big problems with five-digit stardates mentioned in episodes and referring to bygone years...
But we can't look too closely at the four-digit stardates, which do very strange things indeed. Although if we assume they are five- or six-digit stardates where the heroes just drop the century and decade digits, then suddenly it's a breeze to accommodate TAS alongside TOS.
Timo Saloniemi
And all the five-digit stardate episodes flow smoothly in that model, even if we have to accept e.g. that Neelix in "Homestead" hasn't quite grasped the intricacies of the human concept of "anniversary". Although there are big problems with five-digit stardates mentioned in episodes and referring to bygone years...
But we can't look too closely at the four-digit stardates, which do very strange things indeed. Although if we assume they are five- or six-digit stardates where the heroes just drop the century and decade digits, then suddenly it's a breeze to accommodate TAS alongside TOS.
Timo Saloniemi
If you say "stardate 1234", presumably the first digit stands for the year and the next three for the day within the year. But what year? If SD 1234 is, say, 2265, then it's also 2275 or 2285 or 1905, as the four-digit stardate doesn't tell us anything about decades or centuries.
So if a TOS episode happens on SD 4321 and a TAS episode happens on SD 1234, which came first? Well, whichever we want! After all, we get to pick the "dropped digit". TOS may have been SD 14321 while TAS was SD 21234, some seven years later than the TOS ep. We can do that trick to all the TOS and TAS episodes and make all of them fit within the same decade, nicely before the 7000-range stardate of the first movie.
Not that there'd be much incentive to do so.
Timo Saloniemi
So if a TOS episode happens on SD 4321 and a TAS episode happens on SD 1234, which came first? Well, whichever we want! After all, we get to pick the "dropped digit". TOS may have been SD 14321 while TAS was SD 21234, some seven years later than the TOS ep. We can do that trick to all the TOS and TAS episodes and make all of them fit within the same decade, nicely before the 7000-range stardate of the first movie.
Not that there'd be much incentive to do so.
Timo Saloniemi
Without overthinking it, I always assumed that stardates were a simple shorthand used by officers to categorize their ship logs. Kirk and others generally used a 4-digit shorthand because it fit within their mission lifespan (5 years or so). Picard and others live in a time with a supposed 20-year operational lifespan and the need for a 5-digit shorthand to stop from rolling over every 10 years.
In "actuality", stardates have a dozen or more digits, that are just recorded deep in the computer code. Well, that's how it should be. Stardates don't make sense and never will.
In "actuality", stardates have a dozen or more digits, that are just recorded deep in the computer code. Well, that's how it should be. Stardates don't make sense and never will.
It appears both these calculators are the same "engine"
Also, they do not work for TOS Stardates. I input 3 TOS stardates and each time the result was a 24th century date.
I always used to think that stardates were the new way to measure time in Star Trek! That they'd done away with the 1966 or 2266 dating system because of the many differences on earth and in outer space! I mean in the Jewish calender isn't it the year 5000 or something? But later on I got the feeling that stardates were maybe how they referenced time passing while being in outer space!
JB
JB
Similar threads
