posted
How many 'missions' did Kirk or the Enterprise actually have?
Is Captain April considered Canon? I think they should make it Canon.
5 years for April 2x5 years for Pike 5 years for Kirk Spacedock for Refit 5 years in TMP-style uniform? TWOK/TSFS/TVH TFF... another 5 years in the 1701-A?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Why should any of these other captains have performed a five-year mission? Kirk considered having such a mission in his CV a unique qualification for performing the TMP intercept!
quote:...it's impossible given that "Space Seed" was a first season episode. It's either got to be that TWoK isn't set in 2285, or the 15-year line is inaccurate.
Well, "15 years" means anything between 13 and 17 years (in contrast with "17 years" which means exactly 17 years). And "Space Seed" may have been a first-season episode, but it was also a 3000-range stardate episode, taking place some time after "Catspaw" where Chekov is first seen aboard.
Assuming that the final episodes of TOS (in the 5000 range of stardates) were the final sorties during Kirk's 5-year mission, and this mission ended in 2270, "Space Seed" would have taken place during Mission Year Three, in 2267-68 (or perhaps 68-69). Adding 17 to that would give 2285. (And the two-year margin to McCoy's bottle date would be dramatically preferable, because a single-year difference shouldn't elicit quite that sort of a response from Kirk.)
Assuming Mission Year Five was 2270, the 7400-range stardate for TMP would then nicely fit late 2272 or early 2273. But the 8100-range stardate for ST2 would no longer quite fit the 2285 date, and things would go downhill from there as regards the 1000 stardates per year assumption.
posted
I dont normally like to do "me, too" responses, but I agree with Timo.
There are still problems that have no way to rationalize (without being stupid), and entirely due to sloppy writing. Morrow's "twenty years old" line in STIII needs to be redubbed, for instance. Why attribute so much to Icheb's line, when Voyager was full of so many other little errors?
Hey, Timo. Did Kirk's first year (of the five) start with a zero or a one? Was "WNM..." a few months in, or just over a year? Hell, we still need to figure out what happened to stardates between TOS and TNG. Subtracting 41 from 2364 gives you 2323. What happened around then that would see the start of the ongoing stardate counter we have in contemporary Trek? How often did it reset in the TOS era, and what was with the crap stardate from the Enterprise flight recorder log seen in STIII?
[ADDITIONAL] Oh, and what the hell about the 1,000 units per year thing? Didn't anyone ever realize that that meant over two full units per day? It almost works, though. Sort of. With a little tweaking, that can be rounded out to one tenth of a unit per hour. If things are standardized, based on but not exactly adhering to, one planet's cycles, that would work.
So many questions yet...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
2.739726 per day; 2.7322404 for leap years. Basically one stardate every 8.76 hours.
Yes, I DID work all this out in 10th grade.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
In TOS, did anyone else besides those on the Enterprise say anything about stardates? I had a funny idea that in TOS, the stardates may just be a shipboard timekeeping system related to the current mission, and that changed somewhere between TOS & TNG (possibly even before the movies). Of course, if anyone else *did* use stardates, that theory goes out the airlock.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I remember working out years ago 1 stardate =10 hours, seemed to work out quite well: One year = 854.4 stardates.
-------------------- Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon...
posted
Of course, the only ever time we ever saw a three-watch system in use was in "Data's Day" (and someone will probably remind me it was a four-watch system), but it would work out quite well as the basis of the thousand-stardates-per-year system, more or less.
posted
Ah, yes. Often wondered about that. I wonder which is really better. Would the three watch shifts split into four, or would they be combined into two watches that alternated, doing one watch on, one watch off? The latter would be harder on the crew, and therefore the kind of thing Captain Bastard would go for, but it would also mean you'd avoid diluting the command talent the way you would with a four-shift system.
Of course, the whole thing's made a nonsense by their insistence on having the whole command staff on duty at once. I thing we saw at least one shift change in "Data's Day," maybe ecen two, can anyone remember the details?
posted
The other shift change I remember seeing was in "Rightful Heir". The Enterprise was lucky for having Data, because he didn't need sleep.
"Data's Day" had one at the beginning, when Riker took over from Data so he could go have his "day". The episode ended with Data taking over again from Worf.
So the Enterprise's regular shift schedule would be the day watch under Riker for eight hours, some of which with the Captain and other senior officers present, if needed. Followed my the mid watch under Worf for eight hours. And then the night watch under Data for eight hours. And whenever anything untoward was going on, the Captain and relevent personnel would be rousted out and the bridge restored to day-watch conditions for the duration of whatever.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Everyone knows that the stardate system had to be revised after the discovery of the Guardian of Forever, that it took some time to sort out a good index with such a fixed point.
I also feel compelled to explain that statements from TWOK should always take precedence over any sideways utterance from Voyager due to the moviefilm having been seen by more than 11 dorks on a Star-Trek internet forum and just being preposterously better in every way. Give me that brand of "sloppy writing" any day, please.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
