Editing Talk:Launch tube (TRS)/Archive 1

About the picture:
That's from "Hand of God" when Strikforce 2 is waiting in/on the freighter. But it doesn't really fit into an article about launch tubes. A good shot might be Kara in the tube from the Miniseries --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:04, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
: Good catch. I'll scrounge for a more appropriate image. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:13, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
::I have something perfect in mind, I'll upload it later tonight. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:15, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Cool. Then I won't have to do it. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 17:21, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

== Operational Status ==
Are all the launch tubes operational now? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:21, 2 January 2007 (CST)

:Some people claim that Vipers launched for the starboard pod in "Exodus, Part II", but as far as I can see, you can't tell from the visuals whether it was the starboard or port flightpod.
:In "A Measure of Salvation" Apollo orders a Raptor to land in the starboard pod, but that doesn't have to mean that the launch tubes are operational as well. Could be, but there is no definite evidence --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:49, 2 January 2007 (CST)
:Well, as part of the decomissioning, one would probably assume that those functions were removed (after all the coils were removed from Big G as well). After all it would really suck if some kid opened the launch tube and [[Collaborators|pulled a Jammer]]... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 16:10, 2 January 2007 (CST)

::In the Miniseries, Tyrol says about the Vipers in the museum "Well the reactors are still hot." so I don't think the Colonials had safety at the top of the "What's a museum" list.  If the tubes were disabled, it would have been easy to fix, if something important was removed, Galactica probably would have been able to get replacements at Ragnor while they were loading up on ordnance.  So I'm guessing if it would be capable to repair the tubes. [[User:WZ Lawrence|WZ Lawrence]] 22:58, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

:::Hi, WZ. Since ''Galactica'' would be more versatile if it could repair both flight pods and their launch tubes, it likely would have. But the museum conversion appears to have been a very permanent matter, ripping or removing hardware for an aged battlestar with no place to find secondary parts, not even from the advanced ''Pegasus''. The term "reactors are still hot" is left to speculation as it has never been further explained. Since [[tylium]], not a nuclear reactor, propels all ships, the reactor ''might'' be a small electric generator for the [[avionics]] and other flight controls. [[Ragnar Anchorage]] was only a depot of ammo, not significant repair hardware, certainly unlikely containing resources for a 50-year-old battlestar. It's obvious that they cannot repair as they've used the starboard hangar for [[Camp Oil Slick|non-launch needs]], and the pod is left for other storage, still depressurized from "[[Scattered]]''. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 00:32, 4 November 2007 (CDT)

== Evidence ==
Where are the evidence for the info in the first para regarding the launch tube setup? All I've ever seen is one tube and one supervisor. --[[User:Cohnee|Cohnee]] 07:30, 8 January 2007 (CST)
:Good question. I suspect if it's legit someone may be getting their info from a sourcebook or some such. That's awfully detailed. Either way it deserves a cite of where it came from. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)
:The 5*8 arrangement might be derived from the spacing on the CGI model. All in all, it seems to be from something like the BSG magazine though --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:50, 8 January 2007 (CST)

== criminals/people thing ==

It's a small quibble, but I don't like using the term "criminals" since it's a value judgement. It's basically accepting the Circle's actions and ideas, and no matter their good intentions, their means are highly questionable. Jury, judge and executioner in one person. Gaeta was convicted, but he certainly wasn't a criminal. And not all of their victims might have been guilty to the same degree. So saying something like "people" or "accused" is less POV IMO. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:43, 8 January 2007 (CST)

:From a purely objective point of view, "criminals" is a perfect term. They were convicted of commiting a crime. Definitionally, that makes them criminals. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 17:02, 8 January 2007 (CST)
::Convicted by whom? A biased "court" that wasn't really legal itself. Nothing objective about that. By your definition, political dissidents in - let's say China - are ''objectively'' criminals. It's a POV thing, and there are certainly people who agree with the Circle. No problem; we don't really don't need to discuss that in all its depth here. "Convicts" looks better and should satisfy both sides of the issue --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:18, 8 January 2007 (CST)
:::The Circle was a legal court appointed by the legally appointed sitting President. But you do have a  point, convicts wraps this whole dealie up quite nicely, nice edit SV :-) --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 17:32, 8 January 2007 (CST)
::::Well, as said a huge argument isn's worth it here, but a tribunal that acts as judge, jury and executioner, is very biased because of its experiences (an impartial tribunal would have consisted of people who weren't on NC), deals with whole cases within minutes, tries people in absentia without representation, and also acts in secret, isn't perfectly legal. Not from what we've seen of Colonial law. Semi-legal maybe. And I think Zarek knew that well. I'm not saying all collaborators are innocent or don't deserve some punishment, but not like that. Let's just agree to disagree. :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:41, 8 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Agreeing to disagree is a god idea, but I do feel the need to kinda dispute one thing - a tribunal of only non-NC fleet members would be too out-of-touch, true impartiality would be half NC, half non-NC. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:04, 8 January 2007 (CST)
::::::Well, we could use the same words, but throw in the old scarequotes trick. "and venting the 'convicts' to space" or "and venting the 'convicted' to space". I was just trying to specify that the people being vented were the ones that the Circle did "try, convict and sentence", not necessarily indicate either way the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the "court". I have to admit I missed the note here and my initial edit was just an attempt to make "criminals" more neutral (for the reasons you outlined above). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 06:54, 9 January 2007 (CST)
:::::::I like the use of convicts, so barring no objections I'd say to keep it how it is. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 07:59, 9 January 2007 (CST)

== Page name ==

The page name should be singular. I suggest a move to "Launch tube (RDM)". Any thoughts? --[[User:Kevin W.|<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color: #006400">Kevin W.</span></b>]]<sup>&bull;[[User talk:Kevin W.|<span style="color: #DC143C ">So say we all</span>]]</sup> 13:46, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:I don't know. Technically you might be right, but I think they are usually referred to in the plural. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:44, 14 January 2007 (CST)
::Still, naming conventions state than even when something is commonly mentioned in the plural, the article title itself should be singular. --[[User:Kevin W.|<b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color: #006400">Kevin W.</span></b>]]<sup>&bull;[[User talk:Kevin W.|<span style="color: #DC143C ">So say we all</span>]]</sup> 16:12, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::You are right. This should be changed imo. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 05:15, 18 January 2007 (CST)
::::I concur with Kevin W. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:02, 18 January 2007 (CST)

== Physical Configuration? ==
Has anyone figured out how the launch tubes fit within the model clearly shown on screen?  Vipers are shown launching through transverse-mounted tubes at least 100m long, though the flight pod configuration clearly places the hangar deck at the outer edges of the ship (essentially direct in the place where the launch tubes supposedly are).  The flight pods themselves are not wide enough for the launch tubes and definitely aren't wide enough to load Vipers AND show long tubes.  Theories?  -- [[User:Dharadvani|Dharadvani]] 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

== A Day in the Life ==

Even though they used the launch tube set, this is not supposed to be a launch tube. The outer door is just that, a small door. Look when they blow it. Moreover, it's not even in the flightpod, but in the mainhull above the pod, facing aft. Above the launch bay opening when the pod would be retracted. Nicely visible at 29:15. So I don't think there should be any references to airlocks here, except maybe a cinematic note about the set (though it makes sense that the battlestar builders would use the same design for both instead of inventing something new). --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:00, 19 February 2007 (CST)
: Agreed. This wasn't the launch tube, though comprised of similar sets. (Also, the thing I found interesting is that no one found someone's one-year old lunch that Seelix found in this episode, with the whole food-shortage issue that occurred previously...) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 11:29, 19 February 2007 (CST)
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 == Physical Configuration? ==
 Has anyone figured out how the launch tubes fit within the model clearly shown on screen?  Vipers are shown launching through transverse-mounted tubes at least 100m long, though the flight pod configuration clearly places the hangar deck at the outer edges of the ship (essentially direct in the place where the launch tubes supposedly are).  The flight pods themselves are not wide enough for the launch tubes and definitely aren't wide enough to load Vipers AND show long tubes.  Theories?  -- [[User:Dharadvani|Dharadvani]] 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-:Hi there. A good question. The width of the hangar deck plus tubes from interior to exterior should approximate the width of an entire pod. However, it's apparent that the battlestar has airlocks of various sizes. The one that Cally and [[Jammer]] were ejected from was not a Viper launch tube, but merely an airlock that a Raptor could fly from (although they are shown also being lifted back through the recovery lift and launched from inside a flight pod itself). The launch tube has to be long enough to accommodate the magnetic catapult, and series shots show it is qulte long. BSG does not dwell on the technicals of what occurs, although they are far from making [[technobabble]] to move the show along. The soundstages where BSG is shot aren't as big as you would think, so there is very likely times where things are dressed and redressed. And, remember, many scenes are shot with CGI, so the things we see don't really exist on a set, but just in a computer's memory. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-::I've worked on making an accurate CG model of the flight pod interiors myself, so I've spent an awfully long time looking over references. The tubes that Cally and Jammer are ejected from are the exact same ones that vipers launch from. The raptors use lifts to launch from the landing deck, never the tubes (though they were seen stored in the launch tube airlocks in one episode). As for whether it could all fit within the flight pod, it is possible, though you have to ignore the occasional bit of artistic license. The launch tube tunnels are often made too look much longer than they should be because at the speed the vipers shoot through them, they'd be gone in a flash if they were shown at their true length. I'd say that on most occasions they're made to look at least twice as long as they really are. Another error was when in one episode they showed lifts  which would have had to have been moving through the space where the launch tubes are. They'd just put them on the wrong side of the flight deck.--[[User:Pearse|Pearse]] 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 == A Day in the Life ==
@@ Line 50: / Line 48: @@
 Even though they used the launch tube set, this is not supposed to be a launch tube. The outer door is just that, a small door. Look when they blow it. Moreover, it's not even in the flightpod, but in the mainhull above the pod, facing aft. Above the launch bay opening when the pod would be retracted. Nicely visible at 29:15. So I don't think there should be any references to airlocks here, except maybe a cinematic note about the set (though it makes sense that the battlestar builders would use the same design for both instead of inventing something new). --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:00, 19 February 2007 (CST)
 : Agreed. This wasn't the launch tube, though comprised of similar sets. (Also, the thing I found interesting is that no one found someone's one-year old lunch that Seelix found in this episode, with the whole food-shortage issue that occurred previously...) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 11:29, 19 February 2007 (CST)
-== Remote pilot launch ==
-''Daybreak'' shows that the tubes can also be remotely activated by the pilot. I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 02:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)