Editing Talk:DRADIS/Archive 1

==Early discussion==
I've always thought it was similar to the US Navy's [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis.htm Aegis Mk VII] system. [[User:Panther|Panther]] 20:54, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

:There's a definite RDM blog answer that's about a sentence long and says it's a different word for radar. 

:Something else is very similar to Aegis, though... I think it's in a battlestar article, probably a point-defense item for obvious reasons. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:06, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

It is stated that DRADIS stands for 'Direction RAnge and DIStance'. 

Should it not be 'Direction RAnge Detection and Identification System' This still has the acronym DRADIS?

:I'd be happy to see a source for this term; I'd rather not make it up if RDM has the acronym down. He's normally not into this inane level of techno-fanboy detail, so we'll have to see. Better to keep this one to what we know. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:54, 23 Aug 2005 (EDT)0

::Agreed, FWIW. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:43, 23 Aug 2005 (EDT):

:: We need a definite and official source for what this term means.  Personally, I don't believe that it is well defined, if at all. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 20:30, 23 Aug 2005 (EDT)

It adds nothing to the debate :), but when i heard the anacronym '''DRADIS''', i instantly though "oh cool, thats '''D'''irection, '''R'''ange '''A'''n'''D''' '''I'''dentification '''S'''ystem ...good to see someone is thinking hard about all the little stuff" 

To me it makes sense for it to mean this...remember the first few eps of ST didnt have Starfleet, but the United Earth Space Probe Agency or some such....ID it is! Hooray! :) And i'd write it as Dradis..like Radar..the caps dissapear after a while :) --[[User:Simmons|Simmons]] 07:36, 1 February 2006 (EST)Simmons

"Range" and "Distance" are indeed redundant in their most common sense, but in space, a system like this would be pretty much pointless if it didn't provide directional information in ''two'' axes, as well as the distance. Even without a useful expansion of the acronym, it should be abundantly clear that these would be the three values present in the reading for a single DRADIS contact. -- [[User:Cmr|Cmr]]

:Indeed, Gaeta has given three-value coordinates when it's been relevant — in Act of Contrition and Resistance.

:Just an interesting note - Bearing and Carom are clearly not measured in degrees. We've seen bearings up to 881 (Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down) and caroms up 552 (Flight of the Phoenix). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:38, 5 January 2006 (EST)

:: Another interesting note - The Army in its land navigation uses a method of measurement called the mil [[http://www.survivaliq.com/navigation/direction_par1.htm]] which breaks a circle up into 6400 parts rather than 360. That may explain the higher numbers quoted. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 15:01, 19 January 2006 (EST)

:"Range" and "distance" are still synonyms in 3 dimensions. Yes, there are 3 numbers for spherical coordinates, but '''2''' of them are direction; the other one is range (and distance, since they're the same thing). --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 23:29, 5 January 2006 (EST)

::I understood your point the first time, and wasn't trying to contradict it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:39, 5 January 2006 (EST)

:::If you're addressing me, I'm somewhat confused. I don't recall saying that before, and I was responding to Cmr. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 00:07, 6 January 2006 (EST)

:: my point is just that this article can describe what DRADIS measures, and how, without expanding the acronym. is the early teleplay manuscript the only source for Direction, RAnge, and DIStance? if so, it seems like this is, at best, something less than canonical. [[User:Cmr|Cmr]] 17:35, 15 January 2006 (EST)

::Another (possibly unhelpful) speculation.  DRADIS might be expanded usefully to 'Direction RAdius and DIStance.'  This would provide the bearing to target (in three-space), the distance to target, and the radius (radians?) of the target at that distance - either the equivalent of the radar cross-section or signal strength, or perhaps some other actual size measurement which could be used to determine the target's identity? --[[User:sierran|sierran]] 12:35, 21 February 2006 (EST)

:::I think that sierran is closest:  I believe it's either (Direction, RAdial, DIStance) or (Direction, RAdian, DIStance).  I'm not sure of the origin of the original interpretation, but if it's not from quotable dialog, it's probably incorrect.  Spherical coordinate systems require three values, but different names are used in various contexts:  (radial, azimuth, polar), (radial, azimuth, zenith), (range, azimuth, elevation).   In the first two sets, "radial" is the distance from the point of origin, but a radial pattern is a one that appears to originate at a point, like spokes in a wheel.  A scriptwriter could easily substitute RAdial into an acronym, without realizing it is technically incorrect.  Substitute DIrection for azimuth and DIStance for range, and it yields what I think is the intended derivation.  Alternatively, RAdian is a unit of plane angle.  Although both azimuth and elevation can be expressed in radians, perhaps a scriptwriter chose it for elevation because it created an acronym that sounded cool. --[[User:ptb|ptb]] 11:49, 12 March 2006 (CST)

:I have a WAY WAY '''WAY''' better definition for the DRADIS acronym.  Get this.  Get this, it's awesome.  You ready?  Check this out:  Direction RAnge DISplacement.  "Displacement" is commonly used in Naval terms to describe the amount of water mass "displaced" by a ship.  Displacement could easilly be co-opted for this sort of "Space Navy" mentality to be used to define the size of ships on DRADIS.  Notice that DRADIS '''does''' make a distinction between the small vessels and the capital ships.  Obviously it's more than a direction/distance calculation.  So what do you think?  Direction RAnge DISplacement?  Eh?  Eh?  I think it's high quality. --[[User:Trajan|Trajan]] 21:47, 26 October 2006 (CST)

:Range and Distance could refer to different measures in curved space-time or at relativistic speeds. So perhaps it locates targets in three out of four space-time dimensions, but not the three space dimensions at the same time. The display is clearly two-dimensional, with a sweeping arc to show the locus it is scanning at a given moment. It may not be able to differentiate positions within this arc. Perhaps it requires more than one DRADIS dish to accurately locate a target in three dimensions? This is equivalent to Earth radar, which can build a picture in two dimensions by scanning in one dimension. There's no reason to assume that the Colonials are not working around their own technical limitations. -- [[User:Mauve|Mauve]] 05:26, 16 November 2006 (CST)

::It's better to keep this simple, folks. An episode already shows the abbreviations that confirm the acronym's source; anything else is [[BW:FANW|fan-generated content and over-speculation]]. Don't get me wrong; both thoughts have technical merit that makes some sense. However, neither are backed up by aired content and, in fact, seem to contradict what little we know. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:21, 16 November 2006 (CST)

:I read somewhere that it was Direction and RAdial Distance. That makes far more sense than what is in the article right now. The graphic that we see in the series shows a revolving arc, which would indicate that Radial Distance is more likely, not Direction, RAnge, DIStance. By the way, the "transcript" that is cited in the footnote is merely a fan-compiled transcript. It is not an official transcript so it should not be used as the source for the acronym's meaning. --[[User:123home123|123home123]] 08:34, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Reply to Spencerian: If you have a source for the un-abbreviated form given in the article, maybe that source should be in footnote #1 instead of that nonsense about "redundant with each other" (which phrase is redundant itself, of course). --[[User:username|username]] just now...

Consider real spherical geometry for just a moment and a possibility that requires far less stretching becomes apparent. If using a radial coordinate system, you need exactly three values to define a point in space relative to your position: '''d'''eclination, '''r'''ight '''a'''scension, and '''dis'''tance. This has the following advantages: (1) no terms are invented or forced to represent values not traditional to their definition, (2) it is a simple and effective system that is used in reality, and (3) is consistent with the philosophy of "natural science fiction" that the show follows. Quod erat demonstrandum... I'm rather surprised no one else has posited this.

Furthermore, please stop this silly "carom" and "karam" misspelling. The word is '''charagm''' from ''charagma,'' the Greek word for "mark," which is used in speech where a decimal would be written. You will find this consistent with dialogue. [[User:Merlin|Merlin]] 10:06, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

: Interesting, but we would need official confirmation before running with this in the article&mdash;it does make sense, however.  Also, as for [[carom]], the spelling comes from the DVD subtitles for Season 1, unless you have another source of information we haven't happened upon yet. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
:: From experience, we know never to trust the subs ("54" vs. "Viper", "12:09" vs. "Cloud Nine", etc.), but we could [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] how it's spelled. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 16:08, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
::: Those instances are different than the others. Consistently, the subs have provided the spelling "carom". Of course, [[BW:OC|asking Brad would also be a wonderful idea]]. I say go for it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 19:15, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
:::: I [[BW:OC#Spelling_of_carom|asked him]], so now we wait. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 02:33, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

:Consider [[CBDR]] (Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range) meaning detection of something not moving in the field of view (horiz/vert) but getting closer (aka collision course). In this context, Range is the distance away from the DRADIS scanner. So Distance and Direction must be something else. Take into consideration the two-dimensional display on the DRADIS readout, and consider whether the height in the field of view matters - or perhaps objects on all heights are shown and this requires the user to read the numbers (or icon size) to judge height. As for Direction/Range/Distance, Direction would be circular direction (eg 90-degrees, 3 o' clock or "right"), Range would be distance away from the ship, and Distance could be vertical height from the horizontal plane. Notice how all the ships are horizontal, so there is always a common up and down? Something on the same level as you would record a distance of zero, below you would be negative, above positive etc. [[User:Xenon|Xenon]] 18:50, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

==Radar==
Spencerian, why did you revert Wingsandsword's note about the "radar" reference in "The Hand of God"? The dialogue in question goes like this:

:'''Thrace:''' The decoy ships will jump into the enemy star system at extreme radar range from the Cylon asteroid. Galactica will jump here, close enough to launch its Vipers at the base.
--[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:07, 10 January 2006 (EST)

: There has been some healthy discussion of this point on my talk page, and for the record it is at 11:53 into the episode, and her exact line is what Peter Farago said it was.  It's also on the closed captioning.  It's likely to be a goof, but it could be interpreted that "radar" is a slang or mostly-disused term for the more technically accurate Dradis. --[[User:Wingsandsword|Wingsandsword]] 14:37, 10 January 2006 (EST)
::Her "exact line" is still subject to debate: DVD subtitles aren't always reliable, and when I saw it again on my DVD it ''sounded'' like she said "Raider", not radar.  "Radar" probably isn't a slang term because I think they're more careful about these things and that it is not, indeed a goof.  Others please rewatch this scene.  I'm not exact on how ''all'' DVD subtitles are made, but on many I've had in the past they were really just made by people that watched the episode writing down dialog, rather than on a script of some form.  They aren't really reliable. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 21:06, 10 January 2006 (EST)

:::It doesn't make sense for her to say "Raider range". Raiders have FTL and therefore have a massively larger range than Vipers. -- [[User:Mauve|Mauve]] 05:26, 16 November 2006 (CST)

: What if RADAR is one component of DRADIS? Suppose that DRADIS comprises a host of detection systems (RADAR, IR, UV, MAD, etc.) all linked into one system and accessed from one console?--Axeman

::As I have stated numerous times, in context, she could have been saying "Raider range".  There's a burden of proof there, a shaodw of a doubt if you will, and she kind of slurrs it; doesn't sound quite like she's saying "Radar".  I think our current thing is fine: making a note that we think she said Radar, but that she could have said "Raider".  This is, of course, distinct from the horrible "Black Market" in which amongst other failures they call fumarellos "cigars".  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 14:19, 29 January 2006 (EST)

:::That wasn't an error. Cigars have never been called Fumarellos in RDM. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:03, 29 January 2006 (EST)
::::There seems to be a lot of contention over this point. Can someone find a specific reference where they were or weren't called cigars or fumarellos? --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 15:09, 29 January 2006 (EST)
:::::Actually I was just using that as an example; Peter and I are actually leaning towards the position that they were ALWAYS called "Cigars" but "tobacco" is "fumarello leaf" here.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 15:32, 29 January 2006 (EST)

Just a comment - Astronomy uses a coordinate system that uses Declination and Right Ascension to pinpoint astral bodies.  If you include distance, you now have a system that you can use to determine another objects position in space *relative to you* (if I call my "up" north, then I can place everything by how many degrees "north" (or by using negative numbers how far "south") it is, how many degrees "right" (or "left") it is, and how far away from me it is)

==Name?==

Should the name of this article be all caps, or is there a naming convention in place that restrits all caps in an article title? [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:41, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:Possible, but generally it looks a bit garrish and we don't know the acronym fully.  Besides, do you ''always'' write out radio as "RADIO"?  It's a portmaneau, not a full acronym. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 16:49, 20 January 2006 (EST)
:: I agree, but throughout the article and other articles, DRADIS is capitalized. I was only suggesting it in order to make it more uniform.  I'll defer to the majority though. [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 16:52, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::The capitalization is because DRADIS is an acronym, like RADAR or LASER or NASA. Usage for these terms have dropped the capitalization down to where the acronym becomes a word except for NASA. DRADIS isn't there yet in my mind. On the other hand, if I see it without capitalization, I don't change it unless it looks aesthetically wrong. Acronyms should be capitalized unless there is a wiki convention that says otherwise. For wiki's sake, keeping it not capitalized (particularly as the article name) prevents weirdness. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:34, 20 January 2006 (EST)

:::: To bring this subject back up, the first thing I thought of when seeing this article was that it wasnt in capitals.  You are right in that people casually dont say RADAR in capitals when writing because it one of the exceptions to the rule. The word "Radar" is now officially in the English language as a standard word, theorfor losing the capitalisation in the process. Laser is also another example of an acronym adopted as an official word. Radio as far as i know was never an acronym? It seems to me that an acronym only loses its capitalisation when it becomes an official word (radar, laser, scuba etc) and when its not all letters are in capitals (ICBM, LCD, AIDS etc) --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 06:01, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

==Rank==

In the last frame before the opening credits in "Pegasus" the Dradis icon for the ''Pegasus'' is shown with two stars next to it. I assume these denote the rank of the flag officer (Admiral Cain) aboard. Is this worth including? [[User:Jagaroth|Jagaroth]] 05:08, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

:Maybe. Is there a DRADIS shot of what ''Galactica'' looked like on ''Pegasus'' DRADIS? If there isn't any special marking for Adama (of Commander rank then), we'll know that DRADIS can be configured to indicate battlestars with flag officers, as Cain was. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:26, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

::I think the second picture on the page is the view from ''Pegasus'' to ''Galactica'' because ''Galactica'' is in mid-field on the display rather than being the source (at the bottom). I'll check later. To confirm we'd need a shot of an external DRADIS after Adama gets promoted. [[User:Jagaroth|Jagaroth]] 03:57, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I attached the pics together, the other one is Galactica from Pegasus and there is no stars next to the Big-G. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 04:43, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::DRADIS symbology for various Colonial Fleet units are different.civilian ship symbols show min 5 type of civilian ship(except adriatic symbol) military ship symbols except battlestars. Circle (shield) in circle area points (weapons)outside of circle trace(engines or wings)
Adriatick only symbol two points in circle(weapon)--[[User:mustah|mustah]]

==Rename==
Why on earth hasn't this been renamed to [[DRADIS]] so that the silly hatnote at the top can be removed? [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] 17:52, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
:If memory serves, the page name was used before newer versions of MediaWiki allowed full caps of article names. A redirect page of DRADIS does bring the user to the article. It's something to check with Shane and Joe B, who know more of the technicals of MediaWiki than I. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:18, 26 September 2007 (CDT)