Just had a thought - stardates in DSC?
- Thread starter starmike
- Start date
Maybe they should do something similar to what FASA used to do back in the day:
September 24, 2256 = Stardate 2/5609.24
May 8, 2161 = Stardate 1/6105.08
September 24, 2256 = Stardate 2/5609.24
May 8, 2161 = Stardate 1/6105.08
... not sure if serious.
Why would anyone give their current date in a negative number?
Because Guy Pearce?
You realise this question only makes sense if you assume time is linear?
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Only five of which are visible to the naked eye
Five shopping days until Xmas.
Ten minutes to midnight.
13 days until a solar eclipse.
9 years to Stardate 0.0 which is timed to some event. Like when Kirk takes over Enterprise (it's about right). Or a solar eclipse. Or the premier of TOS which happened 300 years prior.
Arbitrary system - let it be arbitrary!
negative dates only happens when only after an specific significant events happens.
the Romans didn't count their years 100 BC
If STD/DIS/DCR has one arch story through out the season, then the Stardates aren't that important.
I seem to recall that the better episodes are those that has little stardate narration as a setup for the episodes.
It should not be a deal breaker using stardates or just only personal log entries without numbers to start an episode
the Romans didn't count their years 100 BC
If STD/DIS/DCR has one arch story through out the season, then the Stardates aren't that important.
I seem to recall that the better episodes are those that has little stardate narration as a setup for the episodes.
It should not be a deal breaker using stardates or just only personal log entries without numbers to start an episode
When you think in-universe in make sense. Our calendar is based around the rotation and revolution of earth around sol. So that would not be the same for vulcan or any other planet. So if you are going to have a federation of planets it would make sense to have a date system that isn't tied to any one specific planet but is more planet-neutral. and yes it sounds science-fictiony.
TOS stardates started in the 1000 range.
Assuming they tracked backwards similarly 0 was not long before the show began. The system was not invented six months after 0 - it would take lots of effort to be ready to convert. So I would think they knew years in advance they were switching.
Kind of like we knew the date the Euro would go live. Or Y2K. Or the eclipse.
So why not assign Stardate 0 and track forward? Starfleet computers can handle negative numbers.
Rocket science. T-10...9...8..
Assuming they tracked backwards similarly 0 was not long before the show began. The system was not invented six months after 0 - it would take lots of effort to be ready to convert. So I would think they knew years in advance they were switching.
Kind of like we knew the date the Euro would go live. Or Y2K. Or the eclipse.
So why not assign Stardate 0 and track forward? Starfleet computers can handle negative numbers.
Rocket science. T-10...9...8..
No.
those were not negative number dates.
they could also count from the time they launced from a specific planet and use one of the many dating systems the planet has to offer.
I mean, the Earth has multiple calenders in use and various time measurements. It is not just the Western Christian Calendar if you want to be all pedantic about it
My suggestion:
They drop both stardates and log entries, both are unnecessary.
The only reason TOS used stardates was because the year it took place in was supposed to be ambiguous, could have been 2200 or 3200 or whatever, now that we know the year they have no purpose. Log entries are just pointless exposition and a crutch for lazy writers.
They drop both stardates and log entries, both are unnecessary.
The only reason TOS used stardates was because the year it took place in was supposed to be ambiguous, could have been 2200 or 3200 or whatever, now that we know the year they have no purpose. Log entries are just pointless exposition and a crutch for lazy writers.
Kirk's first mission being in the 1000s in stardate reckoning is probably akin to it being in the sixties in calendar year reckoning. Is that NINETEEN sixties or TWENTYTWO sixties? The heroes wouldn't feel a need to tell.
A thousand stardates marks a year in TNG. TOS has five thousand stardates to cover what's supposed to be a five-year mission. So where's the problem? The TNG folks include the decade digit because they're an uptight bunch, but even they drop the century digit. Kirk's mission didn't span a decade, so he didn't bother with the decade digit. Georgiou and Lorca need not bother with that, either; might be fun for each of their adventures to exactly coincide with the stardate of a Kirk adventure, just a decade early...
Timo Saloniemi
A thousand stardates marks a year in TNG. TOS has five thousand stardates to cover what's supposed to be a five-year mission. So where's the problem? The TNG folks include the decade digit because they're an uptight bunch, but even they drop the century digit. Kirk's mission didn't span a decade, so he didn't bother with the decade digit. Georgiou and Lorca need not bother with that, either; might be fun for each of their adventures to exactly coincide with the stardate of a Kirk adventure, just a decade early...
Timo Saloniemi
