And then introduce the the new XO, Commander Jenny.God, I really want that to be the first line of season 4. "Captain's log, stardate 867530.9..."
When does Star Trek Discovery take place anyway?
- Thread starter urrutiap
- Start date
According to onscreen info from There is a Tide..., Season 3 takes place around Stardate 29141429.1, which is the longest Stardate ever seen in a Trek production and doesn't mesh with the TNG system you used above. In TNG terms, that Stardate would correspond to AD 293,364
I like this. Only because it confuses things further.
865211.3 also came from on screen info, it was spoken by Burnham, it comes out to 3188, depending on which online converter you use, or if just simply add the number of years x 1000 to a known stardate.
This calculator gives 3188.
https://www.hillschmidt.de/gbr/sternenzeit.htm
Looks like the script writers used a Stardate converter (or did the math), and the art team probably just made up a date.
Last edited:
I think the Federation still used the TNG System at least until The Burn. Burnham, who wasn't in contact with them, would use the same Stardate System other people she was in contact with would still be using.
The Post-Burn Galaxy must've come up with a new Stardate System after The Burn, after the Federation lost its prominence, and this is the calendar that Starfleet and what's left of the Federation that's still in contact with Starfleet might've adopted. It's like they're using the Julian Calendar in the early days of its existence and not everyone has adopted it yet.
So Burnham used 865211 and Vance/Osyraa used Stardate 29141429.
or
A simpler explanation is that the Emerald Chain likes the idea of Stardates, but they wanted their version of the calendar to be based on something that's not so Federation-centric. The idea that "1,000 stardates equal an Earth Year" takes it even further and makes it Earth-centric.
On the seed ship that Nhan stayed on, the archived recording they watched had a Stardate of 806XXX. And the seed ship was definitely in contact with or aware of the current Starfleet Command. So I think Starfleet is still using the TNG system.
But the harder thing is figuring out what happened in '23 (whether it's 2123, 2223, or 2323) that would make Earth or the Federation decide, "That's Stardate 0.0!"
EDITED TO ADD: The document was Osyraa's, not Vance's. They don't agree about a lot. So why would the Federation and the Emerald Chain even agree about a calendar?
Last edited:
Orions are a much older civilization, possibly one of the oldest in the region according to FASA materials but supported by references in The Animated Series. Their stardates might be referencing the dawn of their civilization, which could be in the 200,000 range (not that we have any concept of how their timescale moves).
2123 seems a good thereabouts for the founding of Starfleet. 2223 or 2323 are both deep within unknown eras that pretty much any major event (not including some of the larger players) may have occurred... although I suspect that the refinagling of the calendar is just a result of scientists and statisticians standardizing a chaotic system, and nothing more than that.
It's fun though to think of something happening around 2323 that resulted in the collapse and reformation of Starfleet (warp scale, stardates, mantra), and may have been the catalyst for recruitment of young Jean-Luc Picard and his peers. Maybe they finally shed UESPA (last seen on the 2293 Ent-B dedication plaque) and other Earth-centric entities from the Federation Starfleet? Maybe a new Federation Charter or Constitution... to turn it from the TOS style United Nations to a more centralized polity with laws and citizenship and enforced defense plans? Maybe this is why Starfleet suddenly became embroiled In a bunch of little neverending wars (Talarians, Cardassians, Tholians, Tzenkethi) despite it being a grand time of peace?
Or you know, its not a federation stardate considering the document was drafted by another political entity. We've seen that different cultures use different dating systems before like worf using the '33rd day of kahless' or something like that in a first officers log while serving on the Rottaran
...And then cue the Universal Translator, which lets us think Vulcan has the "month" of Tasmeen despite having no moon. "Stardate" need not mean even remotely the same thing when used by different speakers. Although for the sake of the heroes, I hope the UT gets "minute" and "second" right, lest a countdown embarrassingly end in a fireball rather than a last-ooblong flipping of the abort switch.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
But the "Galactic Armistice Between Emerald Chain and the United Federation of Planets" presented onscreen was the "Federation Standard Language Version" (so... English?). The stardate presented should've been translated. And it was at least functionally from whatever number system and characters the Chain uses. Presumably the Stardate was intended to represent the date the Armistice was to be signed or at least enacted (soon-ish). It ought to be something that the Federation and Fleet Admiral Vance would recognize. I'm assuming it's a translated date that has no real meaning to Osyraa, and that the "Orion Standard Language Version" has it listed as the 380th Day of the 47th Year of the Sorrowhawk or something (in all capital runes).
Perhaps stardates are connected to stars, as the name implies, and there are as many possible stardates as there are stars. It's just a matter of translating what star is being referenced to in the stardate supposed. In TOS, they cycled through the five founders, or perhaps just had a specific mission stardate for each ship or something. In 2323 or thereabouts the Federation standardized the stardate (perhaps Sol or Sagittarius A* or whatever, it doesn't matter), and that was in common use across different ships throughout the 24th century, and into the 32nd century it seems (or at least Michael adopted the last stardate she was familiar with). In the Armistice, Osyraa might be using the stardate of Pi-Orionis 3 or one of the Rigels or something. An accurate stardate in the Federation system, but not one regularly used by them.
Presumably there would be an addendum on Page 573A that explains which star is being referenced with the stardates used in the document.
Perhaps stardates are connected to stars, as the name implies, and there are as many possible stardates as there are stars. It's just a matter of translating what star is being referenced to in the stardate supposed. In TOS, they cycled through the five founders, or perhaps just had a specific mission stardate for each ship or something. In 2323 or thereabouts the Federation standardized the stardate (perhaps Sol or Sagittarius A* or whatever, it doesn't matter), and that was in common use across different ships throughout the 24th century, and into the 32nd century it seems (or at least Michael adopted the last stardate she was familiar with). In the Armistice, Osyraa might be using the stardate of Pi-Orionis 3 or one of the Rigels or something. An accurate stardate in the Federation system, but not one regularly used by them.
Presumably there would be an addendum on Page 573A that explains which star is being referenced with the stardates used in the document.
God, I really want that to be the first line of season 4. "Captain's log, stardate 867530.9..."
That’s perfect, actually, which is why it won’t happen. Burnham’s time suit says it’s 3188; Discovery arrives c. 3189, when most of Season 3 takes place. The next season should begin in 3190, but since we’d only be looking at thirteen episodes or so instead of the classic twenty-six, the stardates should fall into the range from 867500 to 867999, with a nice six-month gap after Burnham assumes command.
Last edited:
I hate the season = year formula, and always have. It's storytelling, let them jump 5 years if that's what they want to do. It's been so clockwork since the Berman years the crew are soon gonna notice bad shit goes down every friday
I hate the season = year formula, and always have. It's storytelling, let them jump 5 years if that's what they want to do. It's been so clockwork since the Berman years the crew are soon gonna notice bad shit goes down every friday
But DSC has been hopping from the start: six months, then nine months, then 930 years, then one year. The whole idea behind TNG was that you’re traveling on this comfortable ship with all these people you’re getting to know over the years, right down to how they take their tea and what they like to do on the holodeck. And then you have adventures on top of that, so the viewer is coming back for both the exciting and the familiar, very much like the Sherlock Holmes stories alternate between the comforts of Baker Street and the weird cases outside.
I think the show needs to settle down for a year or two so we can finally get that Reno episode. Maybe someone meets their descendants? Perhaps they move to Earth instead of staying in Starfleet, and we follow stories in different places about the same set of characters? They’ve been yanked around enough, and all that does is give the show a plot-based booster with a change of scenery, but things then settle down and the characters remain unevenly explored. Time to get back to the basics for a while: “Captain’s log, stardate 867xxx.x.” The year would be 3190, with more than enough we don’t know without skipping five years.
Last edited:
I think a measure of stability would be nice. Could skip the whole "Captain's log" trope because that's been done to death. Maybe one at the beginning of the season...maybe.
Also, I would love if the spore drive was nerfed completed to keep the jumping to a minimum.
Also, I would love if the spore drive was nerfed completed to keep the jumping to a minimum.
If you think about it, would we even have a show called Picard if he hadn’t been explored like clockwork on TNG? You want to see him give that speech and say “Engage!” and order Earl Grey tea. And then you want to see what’s new—there is a dog and the tea is now decaf—and meet new characters you’ll also get to know.
That's fine. But the answer isn't always "Go back to your tropes" just because they worked in the past. That's what Star Trek keeps doing; they put their hand to the plow and then constantly keep looking back to make sure the past is referenced, never minding all potential ahead of them (to strain the metaphor to its breaking point).
But, to answer your question, no I don't think we would have Picard. And I'm not convinced that's a bad thing either.
Eh, it is a convenient way of delivering exposition.
Similar threads
- Locked
