Join 3,501 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Stardates.
April 13, 2006 3:03 PM   Subscribe

Stardates. Someone tries to rationalise something which the writers of Star Trek made up as they went along. Other approaches -- historical and mathematic. Really, I mean really?
posted by feelinglistless (22 comments total)

 
They just made it up. I read that in the Making of Star Trek. They were suprised when people started picking it apart . . .
posted by Ironmouth at 3:11 PM on April 13, 2006


Well, as long that's the only made-up part of Star Trek!
posted by Robot Johnny at 3:22 PM on April 13, 2006


I wonder what's so special about May 25th, 2322?

(It's a coincidence that May 25, 2006 is Jesus' Ascension.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:33 PM on April 13, 2006


Takes me back to my freshman year at a prominent geek college with an 80% male student population - my roommate that year had an obsession with Star Trek. He had modeled, in Pro Engineer's CAD software, every single ship that had ever appeared in any Star Trek episode or movie down to the smallest discernible detail.

Every. Last. One.

His Deep Space 9 model had at least 300k polys (not tris, polys).

In any case, during the second semester he got bored with that, and decided he would do the Enterprise-D (that's Star Trek: The Next Generation's Enterprise for those of you not in the know) both external AND internal, now that Paramount had published a set of blueprints for it with the technical specifications.

You can imagine, then, his fury when he discovered that the warp core ejection hatch was actually 3 meters aft of the warp core's position, and that any actual ejection would have blown the core through the hull plating on the underside of the ship.
posted by Ryvar at 3:42 PM on April 13, 2006


Haha, good story, Ryvar.
posted by jenovus at 4:03 PM on April 13, 2006


Enterprise-D (that's Star Trek: The Next Generation's Enterprise for those of you not in the know - Ryvar

Likely only people in the know clicked the link.
posted by raedyn at 4:07 PM on April 13, 2006


I'm not in the know. I clicked the link out of some sort of morbid fascination.
posted by pompomtom at 4:20 PM on April 13, 2006


Really, I mean really?

Please keep your editorializing out of the FPP.

But really, are these fucking people for real?
posted by slogger at 4:27 PM on April 13, 2006


Yay. No really -- here's what I like about this FAQ:

Step 1. The writers generate something for the sake of expediency and a little storytelling effect.

Step 2. An obsessive but detail-oriented public rationalizes and conjectures stories and bits of history that happen in the writers' universe.

Step 3. The writers, at their option, may leverage this work, these inflection points in the storyline, to whatever effect would be most enjoyable.

It's like telling the story of the 11 days lost in the transition from Julian to Gregorian calendars -- births, deaths, all kinds of date-worthy events which have necessarily complicated (or non-existant) dates.

Maybe I'm just fascinated with time stuff. And yeah, I liked ST. I never build CAD ship models, however...
posted by abulafa at 4:42 PM on April 13, 2006


Mmm. Star Trek.

*Checks age*

Next!
posted by Decani at 4:58 PM on April 13, 2006


Apparently in the 2300s they threw the whole stupid big letter fake transparency Web 2.0 look out the window and opted for more of a 1997 thing.
posted by cellphone at 5:26 PM on April 13, 2006


Uh, I mean in appearance. They're CSS compliant!
posted by cellphone at 5:26 PM on April 13, 2006


I clicked the link out of, yah, morbid fascination and if I'm honest, probably a certain smug superiority needing revitalizing. These were bad reasons, and in true instant karmic fashion, it just got Y2Karl grumpy at me when I cut/pasted some of it elsewhere in response to a joke about Time Dilation and Thread Numbers.

So let that be a lesson to you - only Click for Pure and Noble reasons!

Actually, I enjoy this kind of thing in small doses - just for the sheer dedication and creativity that goes into making sense out of someone's offhand random detail or dialog. Like the pages of rationalization of the "parsecs" comment in Star Wars.
posted by freebird at 5:37 PM on April 13, 2006


They were much more scrupulous with the stardates starting with TNG, where they are indeed in order and spaced fairly appropriately to the "actual" time between episodes.

With TNG, all the stardates are 5 digits + decimal, with the first digit always being 4, and the second digit indicating which season the episode is in. Thus "stardate 42335.9" is a second-season episode. I'm pretty sure the last 3 digits and decimal indicates roughly what day of the year it is.

I think they went off this with DS9. Voyager stardates started with 5, IIRC.

That's about all I remember, other than there's no point in trying to sort out TOS stardates. They kinda fly all over. :)

The forces of Too Much Free Time strike again!!!
posted by zoogleplex at 6:42 PM on April 13, 2006


I think their CSS is cool.
posted by bingo at 7:43 PM on April 13, 2006


I think Futurama got it right - Star Trek is destined to become a full blown religion. Only once that happens can it's members finally be marked for persecution and death.

(as per Futurama, they will die in a manner most befitting virgins: being thrown into an active volcano).
posted by Davenhill at 2:22 AM on April 14, 2006


Calculate Today's Date as a Stardate. The default? Tue Sep 11 2001 08:45:00. Nice. Oh, its 55161.1 if you were wondering.
posted by Orange Goblin at 3:14 AM on April 14, 2006


Doctor Who's back tomorrow which means another thirteen weeks of continuity to pour over. Not that anyone would put it into Ahistory ...
posted by feelinglistless at 6:35 AM on April 14, 2006


You need to understand, this is from the University of Manitoba, they really don't have a lot to do there except avoid polar bears and watch Star Trek.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:45 AM on April 14, 2006


Takes me back to my freshman year at a prominent geek college with an 80% male student population - my roommate that year had an obsession with Star Trek.

Was it CMU?
posted by ludwig_van at 7:55 AM on April 14, 2006


Nope, good guess though. RPI.
posted by Ryvar at 10:12 AM on April 14, 2006


Related, but more about the where, rather than the when.
posted by gimonca at 12:55 PM on April 15, 2006


« Older Naked Melee Armageddon....  |  The Great Failure of Wikipedia... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments