Nope.
There is. Fear Itself has plenty of direct connections and references to stuff from Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, but they're not at the core of the plotline.
Discovery: Fear Itself cover revealed
- Thread starter Enterprise1701
- Start date
Nope.
There is. Fear Itself has plenty of direct connections and references to stuff from Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, but they're not at the core of the plotline.
I don’t know about this cover. Something just doesn’t look right, and it’s looking kind of boring, since this is the third promo pose cover.
Anyone know where this fits in the timeline so I can add it to my chronological Lit-Verse list?
2255?
2255?
I get the impression this is mostly a Shenzhou-era novel, with maybe flashbacks into Saru's past. So, yeah, we're probably looking at 2255-ish for the main storyline.
2252.
That wouldn’t do much good considering the wonkyness of Discovery stardates.
Did they ever use them? I know the JJVerse didn't understand them.
Stardates have always been wonky. TOS's stardates weren't even in order.
Neither were Discovery’s.
Only once, in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad." The other three cited stardates in the season are in increasing order.
I think he wanted the stardate.
Heh. I've never bothered that much with Stardates in my Trek fiction, too fiddly and inconsistent!
Ha-ha. At least in TNG through Voyager they went in order mostly and you could make some sense of them (1000 equals a year for instance).
In the original series it seemed the 5 year mission generally took place between 1000 and 6000 (though the animated series shot that right to Hell with some of their stardates), but they weren't in any particular order. I did notice as time went by, the general progression was to higher dates for the original series.
But the movies were crazy. TMP was in the 7000's, which doesn't seem high enough, then TWOK through TUC they moved much slower, getting to just the 9000's in what was about 20 years. Even TNG starting point at the 41000s does not seem high enough given that it's almost 80 years later.
I remember reading somewhere that tried to make some sense of the system, I forget where (it was years ago) trying to say that it depended on where the ship was in relation to Earth, how far they travelled, at what warp speed. Yeah, I think my brain oozed out my ear because it made as much sense as the Stardates do.
This is from Memory Alpha on Stardates
The link to the entire article is : http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Stardate
Cited from "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Witfield interviewing Gene Roddenberry:
"In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.
I'm not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I've been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it."
So I guess it's not made to make sense, even though in some ways it does---or it makes sense, but it doesn't. Take it any way you like
.
The link to the entire article is : http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Stardate
Cited from "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Witfield interviewing Gene Roddenberry:
"In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that "this time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to Earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours. The star dates specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.
I'm not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I've been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it."
So I guess it's not made to make sense, even though in some ways it does---or it makes sense, but it doesn't. Take it any way you like
.
So I guess it's not made to make sense, even though in some ways it does---or it makes sense, but it doesn't. Take it any way you like
The makers of TOS were deliberately vague about just how far in the future the show was, because they didn't want to be too locked into predictions that might turn out too optimistic or too conservative about the rate of progress. (Although that's already happened -- they were way too optimistic about the rate at which space travel would advance, and way too pessimistic about advances in computing, telecommunications, robotics, and gender equality.) That's why they didn't ever unambiguously specify the century until the movies and didn't give an exact calendar year until TNG.
So stardates were specifically designed to convey no meaningful chronological information of any kind -- just to be placeholder numbers devoid of actual meaning. So it's fruitless trying to make sense of them. Even the more organized TNG-era system was wildly inconsistent in terms of how much time advanced per stardate.
^I do like Roddenberry's explanation of it though. I know he was just stringing a bunch of BS together (and he even admitted as such) but it sounded good.