Talk:Galactica Class Battlestar/Archive 1

Discussion page of Galactica Class Battlestar/Archive 1

The Galactica Class Battlestar[edit]

There is lots of proof that Galactica and Columbia are both Galactica class battlestars. Although no one ever says this onscreen it is seen many times in the back ground. It would also make sense that the lead ship in the class was named after the class, and since Galactic represented Caprica that makes it the lead ship in the class. In this image it clearly shows (Galactica Class Battlestar) [1]. --P sutherland 13:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive from April 17, 2006

There is not lots of proof for this line of thinkng. It is not seen many times in the background and at no point is it stated that the galactica is the lead ship of the class. Just because it represents caprica does not make it the lead class. Remember that when the galactica was built the colonies had only just joined togeter, and that was in the face of a new common enemy so they probarbly had only gotten around to creating a single fleet. The image you are using is noncanocal.

There is as much, if not more evdsnce that the class name is columbia. The Columbia is seen with full armor surgesting that it was built before the war forced the new ship to be hurried along. Don't forget that if this class was created in the cylon war then it was conceved, desined and built in 2 years, this a very quick. This is also probarly not the case as it is servested that the Athena was in survace very early on in the war Thus it can be asumed that Colombia was built before the war. Remember that corners were cut in galactcas construction. JosephK19 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical Capabilites of a Battlestar[edit]


Your assertion of "unfound speculation" concerning my contribution is uninformed and unfounded. I am a military medical planner and a published author. My assertion of the potential medical capabilities and requirements of an intergalactic warship (modeled on a US aircraft carrier), while hypothetical, is informed. Keep in mind these are requirements that the ship would have originally been built (not the "as is" state). At this point in the story line, clearly Major Cottle is the only doctor on Galactica, however we have never seen the Pegasus medical bay or any of its medical personnel. With established industrial facilities on Pegasus (Viper production established in “Scar”), the Pegasus would have evn greater Occupational Health / Preventive Medicine than Galactica. And if you do a walk down of the ancillary services (pharmacy (camala extract), orthopedic and x-ray (Kara’s knee injury), optometry (ADM Adama’s glasses), etc, you will see they exist even if they are not portrayed. Additionally, it was an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed, complete with ventilator, which William Adama was in during his multiple surgeries (establishing an Operation Room (OR)).

Capital ships are designed to go into battle, which means they will take damage and casualties. Often it is the ability to regenerate / repair / refit in the quickest amount of time that determines the outcome of battles. General Nathan Bedford Forrest of the Confederate States of America is famous for the quote, “He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.” RDM makes reference to his experience onboard a Navy ship in podcasts, including “The Captain’s Hand”. Thus, there is an established framework present.

I provide you two active hyperlinks that back up my contribution. While dated, they are still relevant. FMF/FMFE/FMFEref/fs_man/CHAPTER%2014.html

--Killerman 20:26, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

I have no doubt that you are well qualified to speak about the medical capabilities of an aircraft carrier. I dispute their relevance to BSG, however. while they might provide a good baseline for guesswork, I don't think that simple guesswork belongs on this site. We don't extrapolate armament details based on the capabilities of modern naval vessels, for example. If you wanted, I wouldn't object to something along the lines of "we may conjecture that the medical facilities of a colonial battlestar are roughly comparable to those of a modern aircraft carrier" with one of the links you provided above; but I will not agree to listing out detailed specifications based on no in-continuity data. --April Arcus 20:37, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into error;--because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom;
The Apology of Socrates, Plato
Sir, none of us doubt that you know what you are talking about when you list the medical capabilities of a modern aicraft carrier. But this does not grant you increased insight into the inner logic of the tv series: First, we have no idea how many medical staff are onboard, and comparing it to an aircraft carrier is just speculation. Second, we have no idea how many crewmen a Mercury class battlestar normally has, as has been asked in the "Questions" segment of the "Pegasus" episode guide article: Pegasus has 1,750 crewmen when it encounters Galactica, but A) It was going into drydock, and some of the crew may have left to the port, B) 700 crewmen died in the initial attack C) Cain impressed civillians she encounteed into service and most importantly C) Cain was fighting a hit and run war against the Cylons for months, which wore down her crew numbers through attrition. But I digress. Yes, we should object to a statement like "we may conjecture that medical facilities of a colonial battlestar are roughly comparable to those of a modern aircraft carrier". --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
I guess you can object to that too, if you want. I was trying to compromise. --April Arcus 21:48, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
I'm sorry Peter but this is a really good example of the speculation I don't think we should be inserting into this kind of article. There is nothing to be gained from such a compromise. I would if there were, and would like to, but I can't change facts. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:51, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


As I am preparing to deploy for a year, please forgive me as I have packed all my BSG video. I grant you that the personnel numbers for a fully manned battlestar are informed speculation based upon a comparison to a modern aircraft carrier. I use these numbers as RDM has referenced a battlestar to a modern carrier, his experience in the Navy (podcast for The Captain’s Hand), Galactica type battlestar – article – dimensions’ jpg comparing a Battlestar to a CVN Image:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg on this very page. My professional training drives me to fill in unknowns with assumptions. That is what the personnel piece was intended and is consistent with other speculation within the Wiki, so long as it is said to be speculation (i.e. the actual working of an FTL drive). But sticking to the medical capabilities known from “in country (your term)” knowledge (i.e. seen on screen or in dialogue), we know much about Galactica. First, Galactica has a sickbay (Act of Contrition, Litmus). Exact bed count is not known, but is greater than seven (Act of Contrition). Based upon the burn victims (Act of Contrition) and treatment of William Adama (Scattered, Valley of Darkness, Fragged), we have seen Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds, complete with ventilators, electrocardiograms (ECG), pulse / respiration / pulseox (shows percent of oxygen saturation dissolved in blood) monitors. We also have seen at least on operation room (OR) (Fragged), and subsequently confirm its existence with Kara Thrace’s knee surgery (Litmus) and Lee Adama’s chest surgery (Sacrifice). Concerning the radiology suite, we saw a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI – incidentally, a very advanced piece of equipment) when Baltar had Dr. Cottle examine his head looking for an implanted chip (sorry, don’t remember the episode). We also saw conventional (chest) x-rays of Commander William Adama, during his surgery (Fragged, Scattered). We heard about Sharon’s ultrasound, as part of pre-natal health on Hera, where Dr. Cottle found an abnormality. And while not part of radiology, Hera, is placed in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) incubator, when is born prematurely. Next, we know it has a pharmacy. The President asked Dr. Cottle for Camala, the Viper pilots were taking “stims” (33, Final Cut) and Kara is taking pain killers for her knee surgery (Litmus) and latter asks Lee for antibiotics for Anders (Lay Down Your Burdens – Part II). Additionally, with the surgeries and burn victims, there are other pharmacological needs and a pharmacy is where these things dwell. Other areas that we have seen or know about are a morgue, where Galactica-Boomer was stored; a laboratory (to do support simple blood type and matching to support surgery), optometry with a fabrication lab (William Adama wears glasses and as stated in other areas of this site, battlestars are designed for sustained operations). We are also can infer that Galactica has some preventive medicine / occupational health capability because in “Water”, there was a discussion about water recycling (leading to potable water). It is Preventive Medicine that does this task.

I would like to add that RDM and SciFi do a heck of a job weaving into the background all these things. As an experienced health services officer with over 22 years in the health care field, there is a tremendous amount of detail that happens in the background. If I was a casual observer, I might miss or not care about some of these things. As someone headed into harms way, I assure you that our fighting forces moral is impacted combat health support. I absolutely belive we need to address the medical capabilities of a battle star. The propose the best way is start with what it would look like at full strenght / desired capability. Clearly, Season 3 will start with two grossly undermanned battlestars, with very limited offensive combat capability.--Killerman 22:10, 16 April 2006 (CDT)

The citations you've provided make it much easier to include this information, and I thank you for taking the time to write this all out. The addition should improve the article considerably. --April Arcus 22:21, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
I am sorry, but this doesn't change much: the above information was gleaned from things we've seen on screen, and is thus informative and useful. However, the original entry to this article he made (speculative medical numbers, etc.)...isn't supported by any of these citations. Basically, they're two separate issues and should be treated separately. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:48, 17 April 2006 (CDT)
Reverting to Killerman's last version isn't a good idea, but he (or we) can refactor his contribution using the points and evidence he raised above. --April Arcus 00:57, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Oh yes yes, something new and revised. Yes. --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:24, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Manufacture vs. Assembly of Ammunition[edit]

The "assembly" activities that take place in Epiphanies would fall into the realm of "production", depending on how you look at it. It seemed like they were loading the casings (I thought RDM said they were going to use caseless ammo) with powder, seating the primer and inserting the bullet, turning the various components into a cartridge. Whether or not they produced the individual components (metal for bullets and casings would be easy, compounds for primers and powder probably harder to obtain), the act of putting those bits together would often be considered "manufacturing" ammunition. Not a big deal, and I didn't even change the text (since it's pretty debatable). An example of this use of the word is in this Washington Post Article:

"Israeli Military Industries said the ammunition will be manufactured in Israel but the raw materials, including propellants, projectiles and primers, come from U.S. sources. "

Once again, not trying to start a war, just wanted to weigh in on a subject I knew a little about (since they so rarely come up). --Steelviper 14:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Picture of destroyed Galactica-type Battlestar[edit]

Though certainly a model of a Galactica-type was used for the shot, it's clearly mentioned at the very beginning of the miniseries that Galactica is the only ship of it's kind still in service. The story places the shot only hours after the beginning of the attack, so it should be impossible that another Galactica-type (museum or mothballed in a reserve-fleet) could be readied for battle. Shouldn't the destroyed battlestar be taken as one of a third class between the Galactica-Type and Mercury-class, still looking a lot like the Galactica-type? Nevfennas 13:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

That was my impulse. Story logic dictates that the destroyed hulk probably wasn't a Galactica type, but in the real world we can surmise that Zoic probably re-used the Galactica model. Of course, from that distance, we could fudge our interpretation either way. --April Arcus 13:50, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
They don't necessarily mean that there are no Galactica type battlestars in service besides the Big-G, it could be taken to mean none like Galactica, eg. non-refitted, no networks, etc. The battlestar there could easily (and belivably) be a refitted Galactica type. --Talos 14:22, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
I concur with Talos, and that has been my understanding. Besides, unless the ship was simply overwhelmed by Cylon military brawn, an old-Cylon War battlestar would put up the same level of fight as Galactica would have. Else, it was just as vulnerable as the new battlestars. I agree, cinematically, that that Galactica model was just reused.--Spencerian 14:59, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
Something to ask the big man himself? --Mercifull 14:34, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
I'll do that in a little bit, I have to pick up my brother from his band practice in a minute. The life of a college student living at home... --Talos 14:36, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
I really doubt he's going to take the time to clarify such a niggling detail. --April Arcus 14:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

It has always been my belief that Doral meant it was the only Galactica-type battlestar never refited. I always point to the U.S.S. Missouri (Mighty 'Mo) as an example of a ship with over 50 years of combat service that just kept getting refitted over time to the point that it was firing satellite-targeted cruise missiles at the end of its service. I think Galactica was just the only one that was never refitted. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

My point exactly. It's like the WWII era Essex class carriers. There were refits that were completly rebuilt but a few, essentially, originals survived until the early 1960s with the others serving thru Vietnam (USS Oriskany (CVA-34) for example). The USS Lexington (CV-16) was in service as a training ship until 1991! --Talos 16:26, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
It's exactly the USS Missouri-example why I believe that Galactica is the last of it's class: All four Iowa-Class battleships were updated and they all were finally decommissoned (for now) between 1990 and 1992. If the Galactica is simply the only one not refitted one would have to ask why that wasn't done. Why would one refit three Iowas but not the last one? This usually only happens if a ship is somehow different from her sisters (e.g. having sustained heavy battledamage the refit is more expensive and not worth the effort). Also it could be that the fleet is being downsized, no longer needing all ships. An example for this would be the British Illustrious-Class of World War II. Of these three carriers only one received an angled flight-deck, surviving the scrapping of the other two for twenty years. But in all these cases I find it hard to believe that anyone would describe one of the ships decommissioned first as the last of it's kind still in service if there others (refitted or not) still in action. Which Iowa would have been described that way prior to it's decommissioning: Iowa in 1990 or Missouri in 1992? Wasn't Lexington the last Essex?
What Doral says before and after that statement makes it quite clear that he's not talking about a certain detail (like last of it's kind without a network would have been). He starts with worldfamous Battlestar Galactica, then last of her kind still in service followed by constructed 50 years ago as one of the first twelve battlestars, representing Caprica. The only possible explanation for other Galactica-types this leaves would be Galactica being the last of the first twelve, with other Galactica-types coming from a second batch no longer representing specific colonys. But even then "last of her kind" is an usual choice of words to describe that. Nevfennas 17:13, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
Well said. --April Arcus 20:04, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
I think it is still ambiguous, and we should wait for an RDM blog reply before changing anything. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:54, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
I doubt RDM will respond to this issue, and I think the safest course of action would just be to remove it. There's sufficient reason to doubt that the hulk isn't a galactica-type that we shouldn't take a firm position on the issue. --April Arcus 01:22, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
The motivation for no refit to Galactica could be nostaliga or historical preservation, explaining the odd wording; for such a purpose, only the unaltered version would count. ...Don't get the impression I believe that just because I said it. --CalculatinAvatar 20:56, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
Not to mention Adama, "It's a computer network and I'll be damned if I'll let it aboard my ship while I'm in command." (Paraphrased)--Talos 21:01, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
We don't even know for sure if the destroyed battlestar was even in service. It could have been decommissioned earlier and be acting like a museum, just like Galactica was supposed to be. That would also explain its quick destruction. (It snapped cleanly in half). --Catrope 09:01, 13 January 2007 (CST)
It could easily be in service still. In the Russian (and former Soviet) navy, there is a class of destroyers called the Udaloy. The last of the class was heavily refitted and updated, bringing it up almost to Burke class levels. The important thing here is that there are still unrefitted ones in service (there was only enough money to upgrade one, the Admiral Chabenko). Then again, there is the Fletcher/Sumner class destroyers. The main differences were the gun armament (5x1 5" in Fletcher, 3x2 5" in Sumner), and the Sumner's twin rudders. Same hull and most of the superstructure. --Talos 10:13, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Also possible that the Galactica was origionally heavily armored like the Columbia but retrofitted. Then the other 1st war ships of its type were eventually decomissioned, whilst other Galactica Type Battlestars were made after the war without the extra armor (and other things we don't know about) to the new upgraded design of the Galactica type, therefore a different kind of ship. VARGR 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Crew numbers[edit]

How do we know a fully manned and equipped battlestar has a crew of 4,000 to 5,000? Was it said in some episode or where do these numbers come from? I'm updating the german battlestar article and I don't like to use data that seems to be made up out of thin air. The links and notes provided don't give any hint about the normal crew number of a battlestar of this type. We apologise for any inconvenience. -- Astfgl 16:03, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

In the Miniseries, Tyrol says that there are over 2,000 people on Galactica. The ships seems very undermanned at the same time so I would think that 4-5,000 is a good estimate. I'm not sure if we've seen any concrete numbers though, maybe in the magazine. --Talos 16:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Answer: in "Water" Baltar says how many civilians there are in the Fleet, and subtracting that from the total survivor population in that episode yielded the crew aboard Galactica as of "Water", at some number over 2,600 (I'd have to check). In several podcasts, Ron Moore keeps saying that while not on a skeleton crew, Galactica has about half the number of people on it that a fully crewed battlestar of its class would have. So, "between 4,000 and 5,000". --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:38, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for the clarification, I'll take these numbers then. -- Astfgl 07:37, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Flight tube counts[edit]

I see (in Image:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg, e.g.) 20 slots that seem like they might each be divided in half along the side of Galactica. I can see why it is likely they are launch tubes, but I can also see many other similarly sized openings around them. Although it's a fine guess and quite likely to be true, I'm left hestitant that this evidence is sufficiently strong to be canon. In any case, if consensus is that this is canon, we should certainly footnote it, as the truth of the statement is not patently clear. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:10, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Delivery of Nuclear weapons[edit]

Since the Cylon forces repeatedly use missiles as an effective delivery platform for their nuclear weapons, isn't ir relativel safe to assume- since, of course, the Cylons were created by the Colonials- that the method deployed by Colonial forces is also missile-based? --Madbrood 09:22, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

It's a good idea, and I personally agree with it, but there is no aired proof, and thusly we cannot confirm how they do it. The two Galactica nukes we've seen thus far (Baltar's and the one Boomer uses to destroy the Basestar in Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II) have been removed from their delivery systems. (Although Boomer's did look like it was in a bomb casing). --BklynBruzer 09:31, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
Fair point. Perhaps we'll get clarificaion in Season3, since Galactica herself still has three nuclear weapons aboard. --Madbrood 10:06, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
Well, we know now, good call on it being revealed in season 3, Although they haven't been used yet, I'm willing to bet they will be used in season 4 and we are going to have to update the articles again.--Tomglima 20:09, 23 October 2007 (CDT)


Please bear with me for a moment as I am citing a magazine many of you may consider illegitimate. In the September 2006 issue of Maxim Magazine, the "Fashion" section of Maxim Style features a photoshoot of the RDM Battlestar Galactica cast modeling various fashions. In one photograph, featuring James Callis and Tricia Helfer in a small corner alcove of the CIC (possibly weapons control or some other station), a center console features the text "GALACTICA-CLASS BATTLESTAR" in two places, easily readable to the viewer. I know it is general policy on television shows that whatever is aired in a given episode is canon, and what is not aired, non-canon. However, would this (i.e., "Galactica-class Battlestar") be considered canon since this console is occasionally seen in a given episode? Or am I just reading too much into a simple photoshoot? --Jonfucius 09:30, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Do you have a photograph of this? or a timestamp where we can check the DVD's? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
I assume he means this but on that pic I can't really see it on the prinouts on the table. It does indeed look like the weapon's control room, though I can't recall the table there. The room can be seen very rarely. In the miniseries for example --Serenity 10:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
I can barely make it out. Though it isn't canon, unless we saw it on the show itself, or if someone from the show were to tell us that "yes, indeed, Galactica is a Galactica-class battlestar". Then it's canon. However, by all means, we can certainly put something in the notes section regarding this. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:17, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
That's definitely the weapons control section of CIC. If we can get a clearer shot, that will remove all doubt; it does look like "Galactica class" to me. --Spencerian 10:57, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
Something for BW:OC? --Madbrood 11:14, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
If I had access to a scanner I would provide a high-res image to examine; unfortunately, I am a relatively-poor college student (and how many aren't these days?) and the only scanner access I have is a public-use scanner in our bookstore. However, the image Mercifull provided is the one I indicated in my first post. In my copy of the issue, the text clearly reads "Galactica-class Battlestar". I know this is a minor detail among many in a show so richly layered by the writers and producers, but I wanted to make sure the Battlestar Wiki was as accurate as possible; I use the Wiki to enhance my experience of this incredible drama. Thank you all for your timely responses to my question. --Jonfucius 11:39, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

I hate to dredge up an old topic, but here's some food for thought that might support the theory that Galactica is the class name. Now, we're told that Galactica herself represented Caprica, the de facto capital of the colonies. Surely it stands to reason that the first battlestar built would be the one to represent the primary colony- Galactica. I know this is fanwanking, but I just thought of it and figured I'd voice my idea. --Madbrood 12:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Actual class name?[edit]

I can purely speculate that the actual name of the original battlestar class (of which Galactica is a member) is Onassis, in honor of the wife of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. So, Galactica is considered as an Onassis-class battlestar. The prototype of its class, battlestar Onassis is destroyed in the renewed Cylon conflict. --Starkiller 21:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

LMAO at this troll.--Tomglima 20:11, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
And there's nothing to back this up with? --Madbrood 02:06, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
And how would Colonials know of the Kennedys? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
Because they got information from Earth about these Kennedys before the Cylon Holocaust. Years before the Cylon War, the battlestar prototype, Onassis, is constructed, then Galactica itself. Therefore, we presume this original battlestar class (of which Galactica is a member) is Onassis. --Starkiller 04:20, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
I am very confused. There would have to be some serious cite for that change. --Shane (T - C - E) 05:10, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

I think that Starkiller is being absurd to prove a point, but, like others, I'm missing it. As per our convention, pure speculation is disallowed here without official sources to back it up. Since the picture of two BSG actors on an official set using props that match others with information cited as official and used here for articles (navigation charts) which indicates that Galactica is the first of her class, we should continue on this thread. Otherwise, Starkiller's comment is patent nonsense given that BSG is deliberately set so we don't know if the events occur in real-world Earth's past, present, or future. --Spencerian 07:13, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

I've heard on several occasions that Galactica may be an "Atlantia-class" battlestar, but have found nothing to support this online. I've also heard that the original Galactica was a "Columbia-class". Is this true? If so, is it possible that the re-imagined Galactica is also a Columbia-class? I think this should head on over to BW:OC. --Madbrood 11:46, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
"Columbia-class" is common fan fiction. "Atlantia" class would make little sense: why would the fleet admiral use a old battlestar as his flagship? His ship would be Mercury class or something better (and more advanced--it was destroyed like the other CNP ships). --Spencerian 16:34, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
Then why does Adama choose Galactica as his flaghsip, and not Pegasus? There's nothing said on-screen to suggest that the Galactica-type battlestars were NOT re-fitted with computer networks. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Besides, the Atlantia mentioned in the mini could easily have been Mercury-class, and the original may have been retired like the Big G was. --Madbrood 06:54, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
Commanders don't have to choose the best and biggest ship as their flagship as long as they can do their duty from another one. Don't know who but some guy in WWII chose a destroyer or maybe a battleship as his command post and not an aircraft carrier. As long as there are options, there is some personal choice involved.
And you're right about networks. The Mini gives the distinct impression that it was only Adama's doing that the Galactica
wasn't more automated -Serenity 08:08, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, Admiral Raymond Spruance chose the cruiser USS Indianapolis as his flagship when he had multiple carriers at his disposal. --BklynBruzer 21:11, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
As shown in events during the second half of season 2, Adama doesn't likely trust Pegasus crew. To quote Adama: "I tend to go with what you know, until something better comes along." So the decision is logical; he trusts Galactica and her crew, thus he plants his flag there. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:52, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
An corollary to Joe's comments: It is very likely that there is a long-standing (but fading) tradition to keep Galactica from being refitted, just as our USS Constitution was never refitted as a steamer, in keeping with her (supposed) significancy in Colonial war history. Besides, to revert any ship from new to old technology is just weird and very unlikely. There may have been fewer commanders willing to assume command of Galactica in this tradition, but Adama, a man who knew all too well of the problems of technology (and had served on her in the last part of the war), chose Galactica willingly, I figure. This is reinforced with the arrival of Pegasus. He could've moved his new admiral flag there, but he hasn't. He prefers to go with what he knows until something better shows up. The old battlestar Galactica, in Adama's mind, is still best. Pegasus survived more on luck than inherent design. --Spencerian 11:30, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


As with the Mercury-class article, I've amended the class role to battlecarrier. --Madbrood 15:37, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Madbrood, I can appreciate the use, but based on your link, I disagree. The term "battlestar" is a true carrier AND battleship in one, where the "battlecarrier" of our Earth is a rough amalgam that doesn't come close in size, fighter capacity, or firepower. Further, I wonder if we want to use complext Earth naval terms instead of what is given in the show to describe the ships using simple naval language. "Carrier/battleship" is less "smooth" than "battlecruiser", but is is also more accurate. --Spencerian 16:44, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
I agree. Battlecruiser is a nice term, but it really doesn't fit Galactica. --BklynBruzer 08:35, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
Fair enough. I just figured it sounded a bit more "military". --Madbrood 09:47, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
I know. I'd love to put up "big, frakkin' warship/carrier with guns, lots of guns," but "warship/carrier" may have to do. Keeping it simple. :) --Spencerian 15:33, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Redirect[edit]

Battlestar (RDM) currently redirects here. The only reason this concerned me was I was actually linking to a more generic use of the word ("Adama had been on an another battlestar before Galactica). Back when "big G" was the only one we knew of, it defintely made sense. Now that we have "Galactica type", "Mercury class", and "Valkyrie type" I was wondering if maybe we needed a more generic article to sit at battlestar (RDM) describing the aircraft carrier/battleship capital ship concept in more general terms, with Galactica, Pegasus, and Valkyrie being specific examples. --Steelviper 13:45, 4 December 2006 (CST)

That sounds good to me, a general article explaing what battlestars are, listing known ones, mentioning BSGs, missions, etc. --Talos 14:30, 4 December 2006 (CST)
Rather than that, why not redirect to the central Battlestar disambiguation? It already has listed all battlestars by show and type, and avoids extra work. --Spencerian 16:26, 4 December 2006 (CST)
That is exactly what I wanted to link to. I just automatically tagged an RDM on the end of it. I'll go change that link, but I agree that we should just change Battlestar (RDM) to point to Battlestar (work smarter not harder). --Steelviper 20:57, 4 December 2006 (CST)
Hah, I'd forgotten about that page. --Talos 21:23, 4 December 2006 (CST)
Done. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:40, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Life Support[edit]

How exactly do Galactica's life support systems work? I know their recirculation units replenish oxygen and remove carbon dioxide, but does this oxygen come from tanks or is it recycled from somewhere? The ISS uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, so is is possible that Galactica-type ships do something similar to this?--Rapturous 13:52, 10 October 2007 (CDT)

Other than the scrubbers, it's really never been explained. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 14:03, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
Theoretically, they could have a big room full of plants somewhere in the ship. Plants 'breathe in' carbon dioxide and 'breathe out' oxygen, the opposite of what we do. However, you would need some kind of imitation sun then, because the chemical reaction I just described can only occur in sunlight. Other (artifical) means of converting CO2 back to oxygen could also be used (scrubbers?), but like the plants they will also require energy to work. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 06:57, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
Have you ever seen the film Sunshine Catrope?
They used an oxygen garden in that to produce the breathable air :D --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:37, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
Yep, I have. Spoilers for Sunshine follow: --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 07:58, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps tanks containing algae, submitted to given ranges of EM radiations? The idea of a garden is nice, but doesn't fit in the show, since no one ever walked in Galactica's garden. ;) That's why they needed Cloud 9. --Mister Oragahn 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactica class pic to rear its head again[edit]

I ran across this picture, which shows the "Galactica class battlestar" sheet again. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 12:21, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Shall we ask Brad whether this is official or just something the props department made up? --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
Maybe put it on a more prominent place in the article, but explain that such props aren't necessarily official or reliable. --Serenity 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

Main Battery Numbers[edit]

I have noticed that there is some confusion on the number of these guns. In examining the the picture of the ventral side, I have noticed 12 guns. 8 are marked, while 4 (two starboard and two port) are partially concealed by the bottom of the bow. They are roughly between the forward four guns and the first four midships guns. --Kregano 19:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)

There are twelve marked (8+4). With another 4, that would make the original number of 24 correct (16 ventral + 8 dorsal). That's why being so pedantic about trivial stuff like ship armament is kinda annoying. --Serenity 02:27, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Why the flight pods must be retracted[edit]

When Galactica made the jump that broke her spine, her flight pods were still out. It would seem that jumping with the pods extended on this class of ship causes undue structural strain. ZeldaTheSwordsman 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This was never the real reason for the strain. Having the flight pods extended doesn't cause strain... the jump itself caused strain, particularly after the stress from ramming the Colony and from the previous wear and tear Galactica experienced over the four years. Starting from the nuke impacting on Galactica in the Mini, the stress of continually jumping away from the Colonies, the "Adama Maneuver" at New Caprica, the various engagements with the Cylons throughout the series, going through the star cluster, etc., etc. Tigh said way back in Season Three that it would take weeks of Galactica in drydock just to knock out the dents... and he wasn't joking. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. But jumping with the flight pods out (which has been thoroughly established to be a bad course of action for Galactica's class of battlestar) probably didn't help.
There are just too many circumstances that factored into Galactica breaking her back to make a clear argument for and against the flight pods being *the* main cause. Yes, in all the previous instances it has been said that Galactica couldn't (or couldn't afford) to jump with them extended. But Adama knew that this was her last mission, and just like Cain, coordinates or flight pods be damned, just jump or they're doomed just the same. BTW, the Raptors jumping inside the flight pod distrupted the structure, so it might very well have been impossible to retract at all.-- Fredmdbud 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If you consider that a FTL drive might be calibrated to make jumps based on a given volume, or mass, themselves possibly relative to the center of gravity of the ship, the physics of the FTL drives might put greater strain onto the ship's superstructure if jumping without retracting the pods. One could think the retraction is necessary because of power requirements as well. --Mister Oragahn 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)