Thread: Chronometer
View Single Post
Old April 8 2013, 09:02 AM   #7
Re: Chronometer

Today I watched the 2nd Episode of Season 1 of TNG. The date is 17/7/2315.
No, it isn't. Where did you get that from?

I also watched the movie Star Trek: The First Contact. The date is 17/3/2364.
No, it isn't. Where did you get that from?

On screen, we get a good correlation for that "41 is Season One" thing, plus we learn that one episode from that season takes place in 2364. We also get good evidence that the second digit out of the five increases by one per each season, and that each season is one year long. And that's basically all there is to modern stardates.

The TOS ones were originally sprinkled onto the scripts more or less on random, but the fun thing is, they make a great deal of sense if viewed through the "1000 stardates equals a year" glasses. Ordering the TOS episodes by stardate gives a more logical progression of drama than any competing scheme, and the TOS stardates appear to span five years, just like the opening speech suggests.

There are three major inconsistencies in using stardates as a timekeeping system:

1) The stardates for the first season of TNG were made rather random in the final script revisions, and cause confusion - chiefly, there are a couple of episodes with stardates higher than that of "Skin of Evil", still featuring Tasha Yar, even though Yar died in that episode.

2) The stardates for TAS make no observable sense; it seems even the TOS attempt at giving later episodes higher dates was completely dropped.

3) The TOS movie stardates at least increase in an orderly fashion as time goes by, but they can't be shoehorned to the "1000 SD = 1 year" model the way TOS can, mainly because they have their own internal references to the passage of time where TOS had none.

Apart from those three things, stardates are your friend, even when it comes to establishing the age of Jean-Luc Picard.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote