Stardates

[Silverstreak]

Does anyone know how to properly figure out stardates in Star Trek?

From what I know of TNG and how they started them there they just gave the first number as 4 and the second number was the season number.

So the first season was Stardate 41XXX.X what are the X's?

What would stardate 41276.5 be? For example.

[Owen E Oulton]

Stardates in TOS didn't have a formula, they just simply progressed (more or less).

In TNG, 1000 stardates was an Earth calendar year. The out-of-character explanation was 4 = 24th century; the second number was the TNG season, and the rest was an indicator of how far through the year they were.

An in-character explanation can be found here: http://www.coldnorth.com/owen/game/s...e/stardate.htm

Any time you see an X in a stardate, it's simply a placeholder, and the appropriate actual number should be inserted.

[Silverstreak]

That explaination makes no sense. Stardates only went one decimal point, not 3. Also, the hours thing doesn't make any sense either.

[First of Two]

Your only alternatives would seem to be "it doesn't mean anything" or "it's 276.5/1000 of a year." In the latter case, you'll need to break out your calculator, (If I did my math right, 276.5 would be fairly late in the day on April 11th) but even then it'll probably not jibe with the "canon" stardates, as they're pretty much arbitrary.

[Evan van Eyk]

I always was of the the assumption that the figure after the mark was the hour of the day? Mhhh. Besides the 1000 is one year however I know nothing about stardates then. But this 1000-thing makes sense. Since days and years are astronomical figures and would be different for all UFP members it is only logical to introduce a metrical system of time measurement.

[Owen E Oulton]

"That explaination makes no sense. Stardates only went one decimal point, not 3. Also, the hours thing doesn't make any sense either."

Actually, Stardates have been quoted to more than one decimal place onscreen, but most of the time they're rounded off to one. Just because normally we round time off to the nearest 5 or so minutes doesn't mean that a time quoted to the second is wrong. In this case, since i'm treating it technically, I've rounded off to three decimal places.

As for the "hours thing", I'm not sure what you mean - it's basic math. I've drawn a direct mathematical correlation between known dates and stardates and extrapolated therefrom.

To use your example, 41276.5 is A) a little more than a quarter way through Season 1 TNG; and B) 2344 hours, 57.228 seconds (44 minutes and 57.228 seconds past 11 PM) April 9, 2364. Season 1 TNG was firmly established as taking place in 2364.

If you don't like this explanation, fine, but you came in and asked a question. I gave you an answer based on researching the subject.

[Silverstreak]

"That explaination makes no sense. Stardates only went one decimal point, not 3. Also, the hours thing doesn't make any sense either."

Actually, Stardates have been quoted to more than one decimal place onscreen, but most of the time they're rounded off to one. Just because normally we round time off to the nearest 5 or so minutes doesn't mean that a time quoted to the second is wrong. In this case, since i'm treating it technically, I've rounded off to three decimal places.

As for the "hours thing", I'm not sure what you mean - it's basic math. I've drawn a direct mathematical correlation between known dates and stardates and extrapolated therefrom.

To use your example, 41276.5 is A) a little more than a quarter way through Season 1 TNG; and B) 2344 hours, 57.228 seconds (44 minutes and 57.228 seconds past 11 PM) April 9, 2364. Season 1 TNG was firmly established as taking place in 2364.

If you don't like this explanation, fine, but you came in and asked a question. I gave you an answer based on researching the subject.

I understand I asked a question, I'm just saying that your answer doesn't make any sense. I don't understand where you get such a complicated system from. I'm pretty sure I've never heard them mention stardates past 1 decimal point. Now I may be wrong, but could you give me an example?

As for this being basic math, that is not basic. Basic math is far easier than that. Maybe it's basic if you are a math teacher or a physics instructor or rocket scientist, but for an average person I don't think I'd go so far as to call it basic.

How do they describe it in the Star Trek Encyclopedia?

Does anyone know that. I think that would be more correct wouldn't it.

[Evan van Eyk]

Well we do know one year equals 1000 in stardate. Dividing it through 365.25 days is pretty basic I think, at least with a calculator
And that way you get how many Stardate units are one Earth day.

I think this system works great and I also think it is very intelligent to have one "shift" on a ship as one point of stardate. The numbers after the mark do then give you an exact percentage of the remaining shift.

I have never given so much thought into stardates as such, just made sure they progress during my episodes but I might try to start using stardates as actual means of expressing time during my episodes, since it is not too difficult.

As for the whole system is may not be perfect, which clearly has its cause in the fact that the canon of the episodes tend to be flawed or at least bend for storytelling purposes. But it matches the elements we do know, so I would not see how you could get a better version.

[Evan van Eyk]

@Silverstreak: Oh and btw, I do not know how long and intense your visits here were, but trust me when I say, you better listen when Owen tells you something. I actually cannot remember an incident where he was actually wrong about something, especially Trek.
And I would not give too much credit to printed sources, because they tend to be contradicting. But if you really want to learn something about Trek, listening to Owen would be a good thing.
( and doing it in a polite manner, would be even better )

[Silverstreak]

That's all well and good, but I have the encyclopedia (it just happens to be packed away at the moment) and find it is rarely wrong.

But he says we all know 1 year equals 1000 startdates and while that is the case I don't see his math.

As for him knowing more about Trek than me, well I have to laugh at that. I've yet to meet too many people that do. If you want to include nitpicky things like stardates, well then maybe he does, but if we are talking episode content, I would have to see more proof.

Everyone here seems to be pretty helpful and competant when it comes to Trek, and I am only trying to figure out how he gets that. I don't understand the math, unlike most fans, I'm not a geek or anything when it comes to math.

Not trying to offend anyone, just trying to undertsand.

[Owen E Oulton]

Sigh. Let's go in baby steps...

* 1000 stardates equals one Earth year.
* One earth year is 365.2425 days long (leap years every 4 years, except years ending on 00)
* One Earth day is 24 hours long
* 24 x 365.2425 = 8675.82 hours in one year
* 8675.82 / 1000 = 8.676 hours in one stardate

To calculate specific earth dates, simply work it out in 24-hour periods, and numbers of days in a month.

See - basic grade 6 math, no advanced calculus or anything.

Now, the assumption that one stardate, 8 hours 45.95 minutes long, is a single ship's shift, is one of convenience, and the rest follows from there.

Now, none of this, aside from the 1000 stardates = 1 year, is official - they din't work to the level you're asking for on the series, because they didn't need to. It's called reasonable extrapolation.

[First of Two]

Oh, and the Star Trek Encyclopedia says diddly squat about how stardates are computed. It refers one to the Chronology, where in the last Appendix some slight discussion of the muddled and arbitrary arrangement is made.