ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Stardate/Earth Date

JBTrekkie320

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jul. 15 2004, 12:15 am

I'm sure this question has been asked a million times over, so please excuse me...I am a brand-new Star Trek fan and I don't really know too much, but I'm trying...

Anyway, my question is how "Stardates" relate to "Earth Dates"...is 1000 in stardates one Earth year? Also, when did they start using stardates? It must have been during Kirk's time because the stardate numbers were really low in the original movies. This is something I've been confused about for a while, so I appreciate it if anyone can help out a newbie...thanks!

Vold

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16223

Report this Jul. 15 2004, 8:23 am

I can't tell you how they calculate, because i don't know.

but they started using at the 23rd century, or maybe the late 22nd Century too.

But don't rely on the TOS's dates, its all merely random blabber to sound scientific.

The only time it starts to make sense is from TNG - DS9 - Voy
:)

here's a good converter that i rely on. Maybe u can figure it out when u mess around with some of the stardates & see a connection.
Stardate Converter

GACSean

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 50

Report this Jul. 16 2004, 1:14 am

So what would be an example of Dec, 25 2555?

Vold

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16223

Report this Jul. 16 2004, 3:26 am

hmm...

it says this
Stardate: 232980.82

:)

Algeron

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1902

Report this Jul. 18 2004, 8:02 pm

I wonder why it starts at Jan, 1 2323. Doesn't seem like a special date.

Vold

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16223

Report this Jul. 18 2004, 10:41 pm

why what starts at 2323?

i don't recall any show started at that date.

:)

Algeron

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1902

Report this Jul. 19 2004, 5:57 pm

The stardate converter starts positively at that date.

But that can't be true since stardates were being used in TOS. So I think your converter is a flop.

Vold

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16223

Report this Jul. 19 2004, 9:20 pm

TOS's stardates are all random numbers only, there's no sense in them. The people who made the show never intend it to mean anything but just to sound futuristic.

That's why the converter won't work for TOS's numbers. So the designer of the converter got bit problem on counting lower numbers.
:)

DesignationLocutus

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Jul. 19 2004, 9:32 pm

Over a Star Trek year they seem to go from ##000.# - ##999.#

For example, in TNG Season 4, the

start date is: 44001.4
end date is: 44995.3

DS9 Season 4

start date is: 49011.4
end date is: 49962.4

For TNG, the second digit always represented the season number. Obviously, this would be different for the other series.

As for actual Stardate - Date coversion there is no canon explanation. Perhaps Star Trek: Enterprise will provide the answer!

DesignationLocutus

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Jul. 19 2004, 9:33 pm

Over a Star Trek year they seem to go from ##000.# - ##999.#

For example, in TNG Season 4, the

start date is: 44001.4
end date is: 44995.3

DS9 Season 4

start date is: 49011.4
end date is: 49962.4

For TNG, the second digit always represented the season number. Obviously, this would be different for the other series.

As for actual Stardate - Date coversion there is no canon explanation. Perhaps Star Trek: Enterprise will provide the answer!

Vold

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16223

Report this Jul. 19 2004, 9:37 pm

probably,

but some people do have some formulas in counting them.

this converter someone made seems to work very well
:)

LightningStorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 296

Report this Jul. 20 2004, 1:47 pm

I too have researched this.

According to various interviews I think it was Berman or perhaps Braga...

Stardates mean absolutely nothing.. and even all the way up through Voyager still mean nothing.

in TOS yes they were fairly random to  simply sound more sci-fi.  In TNG they said that they added the extra digit "4" to the beginning of them for the illusion of making TNG have occured that many years after TOS.  Once they realized that fans were really scruitinizing these they tried (not very hard) to kinda make them go in some kind of sequence.  TNG's second digit was indeed the season number, but from then on they still pretty much made stuff up only keeping the "new year" change with the same season number digit.  And making sure that the numbers did indeed increase over time.  

He even commented on the vaious starfleet date calculators on the net... he said none of them are correct (because there is no "Correct" stardate) but a lot of them have put in a good amount of time and effort trying to decipher it and should be looked at as mearly fun and not actual.

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Jul. 22 2004, 8:16 am

Stardates aren't entirely random. In TNG the first digit 4 represents the 24th century the second digit then represented the season e.g. 41562.9 is the first season 42198.3 is the second.

LightningStorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 296

Report this Jul. 22 2004, 3:11 pm

Quote (DS9TREK @ July 22 2004, 7:16 am)
Stardates aren't entirely random. In TNG the first digit 4 represents the 24th century the second digit then represented the season e.g. 41562.9 is the first season 42198.3 is the second.

The first "4" wasn't quite entirely the century.  That might have been why they chose "4" because of the 4 in 24 but by the end of Voyager (which was in 2377, still the 24th Century) the stardate was 54973.4.

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Jul. 23 2004, 8:50 am

Quote (LightningStorm @ July 22 2004, 8:11 pm)
Quote (DS9TREK @ July 22 2004, 7:16 am)
Stardates aren't entirely random. In TNG the first digit 4 represents the 24th century the second digit then represented the season e.g. 41562.9 is the first season 42198.3 is the second.

The first "4" wasn't quite entirely the century. That might have been why they chose "4" because of the 4 in 24 but by the end of Voyager (which was in 2377, still the 24th Century) the stardate was 54973.4.

I know, I only mentioned it to show stardates aren't entirely made up there is some sense to them.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum