No, that's a constructive post. And realistic. People would have to ask the computer and more often to get the latest date.
But they sure do sound cool.
StarDate
- Thread starter Kirk1701A
- Start date
No, that's a constructive post. And realistic. People would have to ask the computer and more often to get the latest date.
But they sure do sound cool.
When you have literally hundreds, maybe thousands of worlds under the UFP banner, you need one standard "StarDate" system as a intermediary.
Every species will probably have their planet / cultural specific time system.
But you'll need a common Time / Calender system as the main one, ergo "StarDate".
Look on Earth as an example, we have the Gregorian Calender as the most popularly used Calender here on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
But if you look at the list of Calenders in existence, there are still many in wide use besides the Gregorian ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars
I'm betting within the UFP, the "StarDate" system will be used as a common system and any others will be local / cultural with limited use to that planet or culture.
Kind of like how the Metric system is Globally used, but the Imperial System is still in limited use, and the US Customary units are still used in the US.
We need a common medium to base things off of, and the Metric system is that "Common System".
Every species will probably have their planet / cultural specific time system.
But you'll need a common Time / Calender system as the main one, ergo "StarDate".
Look on Earth as an example, we have the Gregorian Calender as the most popularly used Calender here on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
But if you look at the list of Calenders in existence, there are still many in wide use besides the Gregorian ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars
I'm betting within the UFP, the "StarDate" system will be used as a common system and any others will be local / cultural with limited use to that planet or culture.
Kind of like how the Metric system is Globally used, but the Imperial System is still in limited use, and the US Customary units are still used in the US.
We need a common medium to base things off of, and the Metric system is that "Common System".
You decided not to waste your time trying to figure out something that was never intended to be understood in the first place. Sounds constructive to me.
Spock's log entry during The Gamesters of Triskelion was 3259.2, while Kirk's log entries were 3211.7 and 3211.8. Kirk's log entries must have been made after the events of the episode or he would be recording his log while on Triskelion with no recording device, so, the stardate on the event was most probably before 3211.7:
1. Kirk's log should have been made after 3259, perhaps 3271.7 and not 3211.7, maybe he was weary and misread the clock; or
2. The stardate went backward by the time Kirk made his entry after the events. Enterprise's location/speed/direction must have changed enough to affect the stardate reference slice through the galaxy.
Captain's log, stardate 3211.8. While beaming down from the Enterprise to inspect facilities on Gamma Two, the normal transporter sequence has been interrupted, and we find ourselves on a strange and hostile planet, surrounded by creatures belonging to races scattered all through the galaxy.
Spock's recording his entry ~48 stardates after the events (about 17 days), yet we see him on-screen recording the log:SPOCK: Captain's log, stardate 3259.2. First Officer Spock in command. The Captain, Lieutenant Uhura, and Ensign Chekov have been missing for nearly two hours.
So, Kirk's 3211 stardate is after Spock's 3259? WTF? 1. Kirk's log should have been made after 3259, perhaps 3271.7 and not 3211.7, maybe he was weary and misread the clock; or
2. The stardate went backward by the time Kirk made his entry after the events. Enterprise's location/speed/direction must have changed enough to affect the stardate reference slice through the galaxy.
For TNG-DS9-Voy era, I just go by 2364 = 41xxx, 2365 = 42xxx, etc, and the other three numbers just multiply by 365.25/1000. It's not totally consistent with the show but it's the closest you'll get.
Spock's log entry during The Gamesters of Triskelion was 3259.2, while Kirk's log entries were 3211.7 and 3211.8. Kirk's log entries must have been made after the events of the episode or he would be recording his log while on Triskelion with no recording device, so, the stardate on the event was most probably before 3211.7:
Captain's log, stardate 3211.8. While beaming down from the Enterprise to inspect facilities on Gamma Two, the normal transporter sequence has been interrupted, and we find ourselves on a strange and hostile planet, surrounded by creatures belonging to races scattered all through the galaxy.Spock's recording his entry ~48 stardates after the events (about 17 days), yet we see him on-screen recording the log:
SPOCK: Captain's log, stardate 3259.2. First Officer Spock in command. The Captain, Lieutenant Uhura, and Ensign Chekov have been missing for nearly two hours.So, Kirk's 3211 stardate is after Spock's 3259? WTF?
1. Kirk's log should have been made after 3259, perhaps 3271.7 and not 3211.7, maybe he was weary and misread the clock; or
2. The stardate went backward by the time Kirk made his entry after the events. Enterprise's location/speed/direction must have changed enough to affect the stardate reference slice through the galaxy.
3. Kirk is recording the log retrospectively, recalling his actions around SD 3211.7. He's logging in the present tense, for some reason, so it makes sense that he would use the date of the events, not the date in which he recorded it. I guess.
But Spock said on-screen it was stardate 3259.2, no past or future recordings, only a now recording.
Spock's log is made as we see it. Kirk's log must've been made after the adventure was over. But the date Kirk was using, perhaps only with guesswork, was the date of the events and not the date of the recording. The events of the episode, especially split across two settings (Triskelion and the Enterprise) don't necessarily follow a strict sequential order.
There are four stardates in the episode, 3211.7, 3211.8, 3259.2, and Unknown.
- SD 3211.7 - the opening narration, possibly recorded in real time, just before we see the crew
- SD 3211.8 - the famous one where Kirk is talking about how he was transported to a strange planet and became a gladiator. Has to be written weeks later, despite present tense. I propose that the stardate is taken from the transporter logs and is not the date of recording.
- SD 3259.2 - made onscreen by Spock, after the disappearance. Specifically two hours after 3211.7 or so, which is a very big unit jump for stardates, but not of concern here.
- SD Unknown - Logically, Kirk doesn't know the stardate on his next log, where he continues talking in the present tense about the events on Triskelion. If he was using the date of recording and not the date of the events, then he would know the stardate or could look it up. That he specifically says "stardate unknown" tells us that he's using the dates that these situations happened to him.
Oh, that technically explains the discrepancy.
Assuming 1000 stardates is 1 year, then 2 hours after 3211.8 should only be +0.2 stardates and Spock's log should be 3212.0. He or Kirk is over 47 stardates or 17 days off.
- If Kirk recorded after Spock's log, then he either should match Spock's stardate if using the event time (but it doesn't), or Kirk's logs should be after Spock's stardate if using the recording stardate (but it's before).
- If Kirk was recording in real time in his first two logs, then Spock's stardate should be just slightly after Kirk's log stardate (but it is 47 stardates too many).
We simply don’t have the in-universe knowledge to reliably convert between the Gregorian or Julian calendars and either TNG or TOS stardates, so there just isn’t any point to developing yet another oversimplified ‘stardate calculator’.
Or you can insert your own Head Canon and update the StarDate system to be a new version =D
This would apply to new iterations of Trek.
Just run with JJ stardates, since they’ve been applied by IDW’s comic timeline to the 21st century, TOS and TNG eras also, meaning they probably work everywhere.
Nah, I'd rather do my own thing.
There are numerous calculators out there. In fact, Google has such a function. The problem is that the shows are inconsistent with their own stardates.
They're actually pretty consistent. Every episode they just moved the stardate up a week, and every new season added a number to the thousands. You could watch TNG, DS9, VOY by stardate and it would basically be production order.
Starting with the second season of TNG, production order, stardate order, and original airdate order are almost totally identical. The first season of TNG, like the seasons of TOS and TAS, can be viewed in production order, stardate order, or original airdate order, with very different results with each different order.
So Season 1 of TNG wasn't told in Chronological order to us viewers?
You can think that the season 1 episode of TNG happen in the order they were produced in. In that case you can believe that the season 1 episodes of TNG are told in chronological order when arranged by their production order.
Or You can think that the season 1 episode of TNG happen in the order of their stardates In that case you can believe that the season 1 episodes of TNG are told in chronological order when arranged by their stardates.
Or You can think that the season 1 episode of TNG happen in the order of their original airdates In that case you can believe that the season 1 episodes of TNG are told in chronological order when arranged by their original airdates.
But since those three orders are different you can't think that the season 1 episodes of TNG are told in chronological order when arranged by all three orders at once.
One order can be the correct choronolgical order, but not all three
I'll take AirDate as the only thing Chronologically in order.
Everything else is up in the air.
Similar threads
