Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing Talk:Flight of the Phoenix/Archive 1

Discussion page of Flight of the Phoenix/Archive 1
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
==SR-71==
I actually thought this was a good addiction. Perhaps if re-worded to be a little better than how it was before but i think the mention of the SR-71 Blackbird was a good addiction to the article. The Laura shares not only the principle but also a lot of design similarities to the US ramjet.... on second thought this is an article about the episode not the aircraft itself. I might write a small note on the [[Blackbird]] page for it.
--[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 04:35, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
:Yeah, it was on [[Blackbird]], although I did fail to note the additional detail present here. Thanks for the catch. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 10:54, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
==Lucy Lawless==
http://www.lucylawless.info/battlestar-galactica/index.php
http://www.lucylawless.info/battlestar-galactica/index.php


Line 26: Line 19:
We have to remember that the articles are designed to be encyclopedic; while you can express personal point-of-view in terms of analysis (provided you have have supporting points), you cannot WRITE as if you are speaking in an verbal argument to one person, as Ricimer and Sprocketeer appear to have done. This really makes the page unpleasant to read. See my interpretation on the article for my suggestion. I'm not really taking sides here in the debate beyond what was shown, but we have to keep the page from becoming a battlefield. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:02, 19 September 2005 (EDT)
We have to remember that the articles are designed to be encyclopedic; while you can express personal point-of-view in terms of analysis (provided you have have supporting points), you cannot WRITE as if you are speaking in an verbal argument to one person, as Ricimer and Sprocketeer appear to have done. This really makes the page unpleasant to read. See my interpretation on the article for my suggestion. I'm not really taking sides here in the debate beyond what was shown, but we have to keep the page from becoming a battlefield. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:02, 19 September 2005 (EDT)


:I agree, and think you've handled this quite tactfully. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 20:11, 19 September 2005 (EDT)
:I agree, and think you've handled this quite tactfully. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:11, 19 September 2005 (EDT)


:We are in agreement.  I was responding in like kind to perceived threat.  Nothing the God of Bio-Mechanics wouldn't let me into heaven for.  [[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], 19 Sept, 2005
:We are in agreement.  I was responding in like kind to perceived threat.  Nothing the God of Bio-Mechanics wouldn't let me into heaven for.  [[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], 19 Sept, 2005
Line 48: Line 41:
It is hard to imagine that the Colonial military made a single technological jump from simply tougher versions of Mk. II and Battlestar Classic to the Mk. VII and the Mercury. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a progressive development of Colonial military technology in every area except network and AI. Many technology can safely advance without the requiring networked systems, systems such as guns and missiles, FTL and engines, hull design and flight control. On the note of flight control, it should be pointed out that is inherently '''impossible''' to fly a spacecraft that isn't fly-by-wire, due to the very definition of fly-by-wire. FBW simply means that the your input through your controls reach the flaps or in this case thrusters in the form of electrical signals rather than mechanical (cable-pulling). Since FBW is a self-contained system with little to no access to external electromagnetic signals, I can't see why the Colonial military would try to avoid it or its advancement.
It is hard to imagine that the Colonial military made a single technological jump from simply tougher versions of Mk. II and Battlestar Classic to the Mk. VII and the Mercury. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a progressive development of Colonial military technology in every area except network and AI. Many technology can safely advance without the requiring networked systems, systems such as guns and missiles, FTL and engines, hull design and flight control. On the note of flight control, it should be pointed out that is inherently '''impossible''' to fly a spacecraft that isn't fly-by-wire, due to the very definition of fly-by-wire. FBW simply means that the your input through your controls reach the flaps or in this case thrusters in the form of electrical signals rather than mechanical (cable-pulling). Since FBW is a self-contained system with little to no access to external electromagnetic signals, I can't see why the Colonial military would try to avoid it or its advancement.


Nor is it possible to fly, much less fight in space primarily on Mk. I Eyeballs alone, since there is no accurate frame of reference to gauge movement or orientation. You need a navigational system to tell you where you are, where you're pointing and in what direction you're actually moving. If your ship starts tumbling, your navigational system is what will save you, not your eyeballs. I think people have to remember that no matter how basic the Colonials tried to keep their technology in fear of Cylon infiltration, they cannot completely get away from relying on technology. You need a certain level of technology to function in space, or else you might as well give up and stay home. David Templar --00:31, 22 October 2005 (EDT)~
Nor is it possible to fly, much less fight in space primarily on Mk. I Eyeballs alone, since there is no accurate frame of reference to gauge movement or orientation. You need a navigational system to tell you where you are, where you're pointing and in what direction you're actually moving. If your ship starts tumbling, your navigational system is what will save you, not your eyeballs. I think people have to remember that no matter how basic the Colonials tried to keep their technology in fear of Cylon infiltration, they cannot completely get away from relying on technology. You need a certain level of technology to function in space, or else you might as well give up and stay home. ---00:30, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
 
:Interesting counterpoints. Welcome, David. I'd personally welcome any counterpoints you made here worked into the Dilemmas section. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 01:31, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
 
::Thanks Spencerian. I hope someone less cynical and more tactful than me can work the points in. If I did it, I'm much too liable to liberally use terms like "plot holes" and "writer goofs". =P --[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 21:24, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
 
:::That's OK. Call a spade a spade. If there is poor writing, do say so...I'm hoping [[TPTB]] read our comments or get word of them, and things can only change if feedback is given. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:00, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
 
*The absence of stealth technology until this episode does seem strange. We learned in the episode [[Hero]] that the Colonials used a [[Stealth_Star|Stealthstar]] ship for an intelligence mission across the Armistice Line. An explanation (or rationalization) may be that Galactica was to be decommissioned and turned into a museum, so that any highly classified equipment would have been removed before the conversion began. [[Hero]] demonstrates the existence of stealth infiltrator ships elsewhere in the Colonial Fleet, but Galactica was limited to the less advanced Vipers on board at the time of the attack. [[User:Dogger55|Dogger55]] 03:52, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
 
== Deus Ex Machina Dilemmas in this Episode ==
Much like the Ephiphanies episode, I would to remove and trim this section into the analysis or notes section. However, unlike Epiphanies, there was analysis of the cancer cure in another article. So a similar edit is not possible. I would like to throw out a few thoughts. RDM has state that the construction time is intentionally vague to avoid having the construction last longet than one episode. Also, the construction of the Blackbird was about hope, not to acheive some great technical feat. With a heaping help of "suspend belief", and those 2 facts, the Blackbird dilemma becomes minimized. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 22:53, 22 September 2006 (CDT)
:Went ahead and move most of the continuity error/DEM analysis to [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] page much like the way I handled the Deus ex machina section in [[Epiphanies]]. Revert or discuss if in disagreement. Just trying to get [[BW:ES]] completed before Oct. 6. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 10:11, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | °   · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s>


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).