Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Star Trek Books] Re: Stardates

Expand Messages
  • bj
    From: Trevor Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:42 PM To: Subject: [Star Trek Books] Re:
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "Trevor" <tomswift2002@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:42 PM
      To: <startrekbooks@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [Star Trek Books] Re: Stardates

      > I've heard a few theories about stardates, such as they are used to
      > represent how long a ship has been on its mission (which would be sort of
      > illogical, considering that in the episodes we've seen people on ships and
      > starbases using the same stardates, so I don't think there would be just
      > one "stardate" per ship---it would get confusing, not to mention that in
      > TNG, DS9 and Voy, the stardates contiue on even though we've jumped from
      > the Enterprise to DS9 to Voyager).
      >
      > But you have to remember that in Star Trek: Enterprise, Archer and crew
      > were using Earth dates, such as October 13, 2153.
      >

      Ent: FA is Capt Kirk -- he's taking command & Pike is leaving after 15
      years. It's *Kirk's* first Enterprise adventure.

      I wonder when & why "they" decided to use Stardates? Maybe it just "so
      happened" that "they" had recently decided to go to Stardates rather than
      Earth ADs & that's why in FA Spock's logs start out as 0000.x.

      Sometimes a book will tell what AD it is & it's clear from the context what
      general SD it is -- but I don't think it's really consistently nailed down
      among various stories. Not that I've made a list or anything.

      I know it's been a point of much discussion over the years & probably
      doesn't even *have* an answer. That's part of the fun.
      bj
    • April_Anastasia
      The best explanation I read about Stardates was convaluted.  It has to do with date and time, position in space and they started using it in the original
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 14, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The best explanation I read about Stardates was convaluted.  It has to do with
        date and time, position in space and they started using it in the original
        series, without any definitive markers, so the writer's just "winged" it, so to
        speak.  I am writing a Trek piece, (unofficially) and have put the last two
        digits of the year first:  year 2285 becomes 85, month November, becomes 8511. 
        Date 16th, becomes 8511.16.  I know this isn't the correct formula, but it helps
        me keep my timeline straight in my head.  :-P

        It is my understanding the writer's had some kind of formula for TNG --- I
        believe they divided it into seasons, starting with a certain set of numbers
        with the very first season and then continued on from there.  I think they were,
        at least, more consistent.  But then again, it helps when you have a "plan".


        ~april
         
         
        "I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once!"




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andrew Brown
        ... If you want a properly scientific (though non-Canon) explanation of TOS stardates, there is none better (IMHO) than Andrew Main s investigation on the Star
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 14, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > The best explanation I read about Stardates was convaluted. It has to do
          > with date and time, position in space and they started using it in the
          > original series, without any definitive markers, so the writer's just
          > "winged" it, so to speak. I am writing a Trek piece, (unofficially) and
          > have put the last two digits of the year first: year 2285 becomes 85, month
          > November, becomes 8511. Date 16th, becomes 8511.16. I know this isn't the
          > correct formula, but it helps me keep my timeline straight in my head. :-P
          >
          > It is my understanding the writer's had some kind of formula for TNG --- I
          > believe they divided it into seasons, starting with a certain set of numbers
          > with the very first season and then continued on from there. I think they
          > were, at least, more consistent. But then again, it helps when you have a
          > "plan".
          >

          If you want a properly scientific (though non-Canon) explanation of TOS
          stardates, there is none better (IMHO) than Andrew Main's investigation on
          the Star Trek Archive, here:

          http://starchive.cs.umanitoba.ca/?stardates/

          This is very convoluted, but then, what explanation would not be when no
          system was ever created for the show's writers at the time?

          Basically the stardate rates change. During TOS, 5 stardates = 1 Earth day.
          For TMP, 0.1 stardates = 1 Earth day. For STII onwards, 0.5 stardates = 1
          Earth day. Changeover dates are calculated to give closest approximations
          for established years of events and movies. I love this system, and I wrote
          a program to convert stardates according to this. It's the system I still
          use today. :)

          The TNG stardates are very simple. 1000 stardates = 1 Earth Year (or 1 TNG
          Season), which gives about 2.74 stardates = 1 Earth day. Backtracking from
          the first episode has the TNG stardates starting on 1st January 2323. So,
          either there was more than one issue of stardates, or there was a blending
          of them between TOS and TNG.

          Go read the site, it is very informative. He clearly put a lot of work into
          it.

          The YYMM.DD format for stadates is a good handy mnemonic for quick and dirty
          rough timeline placements. It does however miss out a whole raft of numbers.
          :) On the other side, Star Trek V would not have happened, unless there is a
          45th month. :D

          Andy


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.