ADF’s Stardates

[Falconer]

Alan Dean Foster, in his Star Trek Log series, completely discarded the haphazard TAS stardates and assigned new ones. Here is the list of TAS episodes in the first column, and in the second column the stardates ADF gave them (derived from a wiki, so, corrections welcome):

In the third column I calculated out an earth date assuming 1 stardate = 1 earth day (per the TOS Writer’s Guide), and calibrated it for “The Survivor” taking place on Christmas 2269. It starts out okay, with weeks or months between each adventure, but then all of a sudden they are happening every day, sometimes multiple episodes in a single day!

The adventures span an 8-month period, which seems short but at least the right ballpark. It’s not meant to be 8 years, for example. So even if 1 stardate = 1 day was not intended, what is? I thought maybe ADF changed his calculation midstream, intentionally or unintentionally, and starting with LOG FOUR (“The Terratin Incident,” etc.) was thinking in terms of 0.1 stardate = 1 day.

But maybe one of you has some better insight, especially those who are really familiar with these books. I think it’s worth half-assuming ADF didn’t just completely fudge this, since he bothered to replace the TAS stardates in the first place.

 

[Christopher]

I doubt Foster bothered to calculate specific dates; he probably just wanted the stardates to progress in order. Really, stardates aren't supposed to make sense, just to give a rough impression of a futuristic calendar.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

The subject of stardates is covered, as I recall, in TMOST. Complete with the pure-BS in-universe explanation for the effects of episodes being aired in a sequence other than that in which they were produced, that was circulated when fans began to complain.

 

[Falconer]

The TOS Writer’s Guide (quoted in TMOST) does use technobabble to cover why episodes occur out of order. However, it does insist that the progression WITHIN an episode should be constant, and progress at the rate of 1=1. So I don’t think it was entirely meant to be nonsensical.

Though now I look at it, it does say “1313.5 is twelve o'clock noon of one day and 1314.5 would be noon of the next day,” but then in the next sentence apparently contradicts this, saying, “Each percentage point is roughly equivalent to one-tenth of one day.” So this might be why ADF changed methodology (if he did). A percentage point = 0.01. Though surely Roddenberry meant 0.1.

 

[Christopher]

So I don’t think it was entirely meant to be nonsensical.

No, it was meant to convey an illusion of sense, meaning it couldn't be obviously nonsensical on first glance. It was meant to give a surface impression of meaning, insofar as the stories went. But there's no actual meaning or calculation underneath, no systematic or consistent scheme you can use to extract specific calendar dates from it.

 

[Falconer]

That’s fair, with regard to TOS. But novels are a genre which demands greater verisimilitude than TV. So often authors work out time calculations, chronologies, distance calculations, etc., in order to maintain a reasonable level of immersion for the reader. When you’re watching TV, you are likely not paying attention to the stardates, but when reading a book, the reader should be generally able to discern how much time has passed in the story—have hours or days or weeks have passed? And the author who is compelled to provide stardates has likely worked out, at least vaguely, a rate of time passage. Because the reader can and will check.

Anyway, if we could just treat this thread as, say, a “what if,” and proceed under the assumption that ADF might have been intentional with his stardates, and see where it takes us, I think it could be interesting.

 

[Christopher]

But novels are a genre which demands greater verisimilitude than TV. So often authors work out time calculations, chronologies, distance calculations, etc., in order to maintain a reasonable level of immersion for the reader.

Which is why Alan put the stardates in order. It doesn't necessarily follow that he worked out the exact dates. After all, back then it wasn't even established what decade TOS/TAS took place in.

And one can assume there's a certain amount of interstellar travel time between episodes. These days, Trek tends to break Roddenberry's rules by treating interstellar travel as a quick and easy commute, but back then, it was assumed that the journeys between star systems could take weeks. And with the distances between fictional star systems unestablished (and our knowledge of the distances to real star systems being inexact back then), it would really have been counterproductive to lock in exact travel times between episodes. So the only thing Alan would really have had an incentive to do was put the episodes in order, not to determine exact intervals between them.

 

[ryan123450]

Falconer, I don’t have anything specific to add to this discussion, as I don’t think there’s much to be discovered by examining these stardates. But I absolutely love seeing your speculative reasoning. Seems exactly like something I would look into. See my website for some of the crazy specific rabbit holes I’ve gone down similar to this.

 

[dupersuper]

I tend to ignore stardates and just place things in production/airdate order unless there's a specific reason not to.

 

[Therin of Andor]

When I did a "lower decks" timeline for TOS, tracking all the minor Starfleet crew appearances, I ended up using production order for TOS but ADF's Stardate order for TAS. The order that the episode adaptations appear in his books actually work really well.