Talk:Pegasus (RDM)/Archive1

Pegasus Fleet[edit]

Should we post information on Pegasus's fleet in the Pegasus article? I know we don't know very much so far, except that there were 15 ships and one of them was the Scylla, but it stands to reason that we'll probably learn about some of the other ships as the new season progresses and if we get to meet other civilian crew members of Pegasus.--Ltcrashdown 01:51, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Best place, as I see it. Probably less confusing here than The Fleet. --April Arcus 01:59, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I definately agree on that front. The 15 ships certainly won't be showing up to join the fleet so there's no reason to include them there. I'll add the info we already know about the ships (aside from the mutiny stuff which we can add later).--Ltcrashdown 02:12, 7 January 2006 (EST)

In the process of adding info on the Pegasus fleet, Ricimer added his own details. Rather than rudely delete his comments, I'm just going to post what I wrote here, sot hat it doesn't go to waste. I'll probably incorporate some of what I wrote into the current article later, but for now I'd like to leave it here. Hope that's not a problem.--Ltcrashdown 02:24, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Shortly after the Fall of the Twelve Colonies, Pegasus picked up 15 civilian ships which Admiral Cain sought to exploit for military use. Some of the passengers were drafted into ther Pegasus's crew, while just about any useful equipment and parts were stripped from the craft.

The ships included:

The Scylla - civilian transport

14 other ships of unknown design

An interesting note about the ships of Pegasus's short-lived fleet was that several of them had weapons which were later removed on Admiral Cain's orders.

Also, the FTL drives on the ships were removed, but for unknown use (it can be assumed that the FTL drives would probably be too small for Pegasus and too big for Vipers/Raptors, so maybe they were used for parts in the event that the FTL of the Pegasus or a Raptor might break down, Note that this is pure speculation).

Pegasus Images[edit]

There's a ton of close up Pegasus shots in the file list that aren't being used. Flyby's, zoomins on various components, etc. Should we use some of them here (or elsewhere)? I'm on something of a campaign to clean up (delete) pics that aren't being used (due to this discussion), and this was the biggest pattern I could find. If they're worth keeping around, I won't object, but it seems like if they were worth using they would have been linked to (especially since some of them have been around since September).--Steelviper 17:29, 16 January 2006 (EST)

It might be sensible to list them by subject and see if any of them can be used in picture-wanting articles before we trash them all. Worth the effort? --April Arcus 18:24, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Sure. I'll work on an "Island of Misfit Images" to see if we can't find a home for them. --Steelviper 08:28, 17 January 2006 (EST)

Vipers[edit]

What about vipers? What model do they have? --PhoenixHacker 20:47, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Mark IVs. As did a majority of the Colonial Fleet. (The only reason Galactica has any Mark IIs is because they were museum displays.) -- Joe Beaudoin 20:55, 16 January 2006 (EST)

That's Mark VII. --April Arcus 21:57, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Pegasus Registry Number[edit]

I am nearly positive that Pegasus' registry number is BS-62, however, I will present my evidence before (and if) I make an edit to the article.

A. Pictures:

B. Reasoning: We know that Galactica's registry number is BS-75. Galactica was also a member of BSG-75. I think that its safe to say that Battlestar Groups are numbered after the registry of their Battlestar, or else this is a pretty big coincidence. Pegasus' was a member of BSG-62, and the registry in those pictures looks like BS-62.

Thats why I made the orignal edit to the article. If we still think this isn't enough evidence, I won't edit it again. --BMS 17:58, 25 January 2006 (EST)

But your reasoning is utterly irrelevant. Ron D. Moore has stated, in his blog, that it is not a registry number but the number of their Battlestar Group. The number written on their hulls and ship emblem on their seals and patches seen since the miniseries say "BSG 75". They just like to display their Group number instead of registry; not exactly like Earth military now, etc. I'm sorry, but none of us will probably say this is good evidence; you haven't been here for a while BMS, but this has all be gone over a lot already. More importantly, Ron D. Moore said that MORE THAN ONE Battlestar is usually in a Battlestar Group. It's like a navy carrier battlegroup. it can't be "Groups are number after the registry of their battlestar", because that would be ONE Battlestar, singular. There are multiple Battlestars in each Group.--Ricimer 18:17, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Ricimer, I am completley aware that there is a difference between BS and BSG. And I am fully aware that BSGs can have multiple Battlestars, I read that blog too and have seen that article within the wiki. But, the Galactica BSG is clearly named after Galactica's registry - BS-75. You can see BS-75 emblazoned on the flight pods below "Galactica" in high-res captures. If you want to extend the battle group analogy that RDM brought up, its notable that modern carrier battle groups (battle group is actually an obsolete term, they are now called "carrier strike groups" - thought CVBG is still used as an acronym) are named after their flagship. For instance, the battle group with the USS Abraham Lincoln as the flag is called the Abraham Lincoln Strike Group. Pegasus was the lead of her BSG. The flag officer commanding BSG-62, Cain, made her flag on Pegasus. Therefore, just like BSG-75 is named after Galactica BS-75, BSG-62 is named after Pegasus BS-62. But if you still don't believe me, I've uploaded a clear screencap of the flightpod, showing the text "Pegasus BS 62" from Resurrection Ship, pt. 2. --BMS 23:15, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Obviously the facts speak for themselves, but I'm going to chime in in BMS' defense here. The evidence is unequivocal. Thank you for researching the issue so thoroughly. --April Arcus 02:38, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Thanks Peter. During my research, I found it interesting that modern carrier strike groups are almost never refered to as "CVBG 71" or something similar, like they are in the Galactica universe. I bet that it's because RDM thought "Galactica Strike Group" sounded unweildy, but BSG 75 sounded cool. --BMS 13:00, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Bada-bing, bada-boom. Case closed. No need for drama folks. Either it was shown or it wasn't. Before, it looked like it wasn't shown, but this cap seals it. Nice research. --Day 07:15, 26 January 2006 (EST)

I agree that it's BS-62. It's visible in the CIC wall in "Pegasus" and "Resurrection Ship" and visible on the podium in the pilot briefing room. --Talos 18:13, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Whether or not Pegasus is "BSG-62" is not in question: the page for BSG-62 was updated and confirmed as soon as "Resurrection Ship, Part I" came out, some time ago.--Ricimer 18:17, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps the BSGs are numbered after the lead ship in the group, like the flagship. --Talos 18:28, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Four Landing Strips?[edit]

Did I just notice four landing strips in The Captain's Hand? one right side up and one upside down (relative to the rest of the shape, this is space after all, everything is relative). This would make sense with the images of the upside down launch tubes. Something commenting on the extra landing strips should be put in --Antagonist 03:08, 18 February 2006 (EST)

No. We addressed this in the talk for Captain's Hand; the camera was upside down to reflect to the viewers that the ship was twisting around, etc. --The Merovingian 03:53, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Yes, the Pegasus was flying "inverted" relative to the Cameras POV...however the Pegasus does indeed possess 4 landing strips, @ 2 strips per Flight Pod. look at the following image: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Pegasus01.jpg you can clearly see 4 landing strips in that image.As well as the fact that when she is recalling her vipers you can clearly see Vipers entering the Port Flight pod on both sides of the center line. Rewatch that sequence again its pretty obvious.--Strato

Random Pegasus Name Trivia[edit]

I randomly came across the fact that there has been a aircraft carrier named Pegasus. Originally commissioned as the Ark Royal, she was renamed Pegasus in order to free up Ark Royal for a new carrier being developed. I wonder if it's bad luck to rename a ship while still in service... --Steelviper 14:19, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Only if you give it an assignment against extremist Islam and their basesta-- I mean, Zodiac boats. --Spencerian 15:55, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Weapons[edit]

I believe that luanched craft should be excluded from weapons based on e.g. Wikipedia:USS Midway (CV-41) and Wikipedia:USS Nimitz (CVN-68) (and less strongly [1]). I wouldn't object to a new template item parallel to "Aircraft" on the Midway entry. (I dislike the "Aircraft and aviation facilities:" naming of that item on the Nimitz article.) --CalculatinAvatar 15:23, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Well I guess someone should add the separate category for aircraft, like the one on "Midway". --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:27, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

I could go either way. Technically speaking, I don't think it's wrong to refer to an aircraft as a weapon - then again, so is the battlestar itself. --April Arcus 15:27, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Group[edit]

Ok I changed the battlestar designation to BSG62 (Battlestar Group) before looking into the histroy to see that its been changed and reverted several times before and there is a discusison above but im still none the wiser. In the background of Pegasus it quite clearly says BSG just as the official "Battlestar Galactica" logo shows BSG75. Before I change the Galactica article or anyone reverts this Pegasus page Id like to have a discussion about it please. --Mercifull 09:23, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

BS 62 is the hull number. Think of it this way - in WW2, USS Saratoga (Hull number: CV-3) was the center of Task Force 38. In this case, the Group number (BSG) happens to coincide with the hull number of the lead ship (BS), but they're still separate designations. --April Arcus 09:33, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Thats what i thought, except it seems odd that the hull number would also be the same as the group for Galactica too? --Mercifull 09:43, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Perhaps Peggie was the group flagship and the BSG is numbered after her, afterall she had a flag officer in command. Galactica could also be the same, in the Navy the USS Constitution, the oldest ship commisioned in the Navy is a flagship. Galactica might have had a similar role in the colonial fleet, compare how big the decommisioning ceremony was to the one for the USS Oriskany, the last of the WWII era Essex-class fleet carriers in active service (ironic because Oriskany was just sank a few days ago). --Talos 09:47, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Mercifull and his point of view. As with the designation, BSG stands for Battlestar group, NOT battlestar galactica. We can determine that the BSG assignment is on the battlestar's seal. BS75 could be a hull number as also mentioned. --Lgamser 21:35, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Whatever. This argument was settled months ago. --April Arcus 21:45, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Reverse Gravity?[edit]

A recent edit added a mention of the 4 landing strips and then talked about gravity. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, Galactica uses magnets, not gravity for landing Vipers. I would assume, then, that Pegasus does, as well. Thus, moving from any of the five available flight pods would be the same, since the magnets would little affect the non-metalic pilots. Anyone else think the same way? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 02:44, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Agreed: we aren't actually sure if there's a different graviety field or not; they land using magnets. For all we know they climb out upside down (though this would be odd, maybe they have a platform that 180's I dunno): point is, it's speculation and might not necessarily be different gravity fields so we shouldn't assume its that. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:03, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Well, the way I envision it all working is that you land you fighter and then sit in it through some kind of retreival process that all happens in zero-g except for the end which transitions you to gravity and sets you down on the hanger deck. That gives plenty of time for The Beast to flip half her fighters over before they're under noticable gravity. All of that is, of course, speculation. It's just what made sense to me. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 08:06, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Yes, I like that theory. Probably what happens. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:18, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

That was the EXACT theory I had! Good job! Maybe this is another thing we could ask on BW:OC... *ponders* --Madbrood 07:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Does anyone have a theory about the hangar decks on the Pegasus? --Antagonist mentioned the inverted lauch tubes farther up on this page, and u can clearly see some Vipers launching upside down at the end of the Pegasus episode. They then twist in flight to orient themselves with the rest of the squadron. This seems to me, that there are 2 hangar decks, one upside-up and one upside-down, for each flight pod. The bottom one would use reverse gravity. If there was only one upside-up hangar deck I don't know why or how they would wheel a Viper into an upside down tube to launch, especially since the pilot can just twist in flight anyway. If every other lauch tube had a track that twisted the Viper 180° like a roller coaster you could get away with the one hangar deck, but I don't know. Any theories? --EnsignXI 07:44, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Well i was thinking the two "lower" landing pods were for combat landings. So you have extra room for vipers to land. Then when the ship is jumped, the vipers exit the emergency pod and land on the fully equipped one. --lordmutt 08:07, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Not the First Pegasus[edit]

I was looking through the first issue of the BSG magazine, and in the section where it talks about Battlestars and names quite a few, it names that before the Cylon war there were 5 original Battlestars, and one of these is called "Pegasus". Is this another Battlestar, perhaps having being destroyed and the new one was named in it's honor, or was it refitted? --Sauron18 03:32, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Possibly an error maybe? Pegasus is a Mercury class battlestar comparared to the original Galactica type so we can rule out a re-fit and as its not known as Pegasus II so would seem to also rule out a previous incarnation of the same name. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:57, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

US Navy ships are not named with a "II" when they share a name with a previous ship, so I see no reason to assume such about the Colonial Fleet. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 04:43, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Exactly. We are on our second USS Enterprise aircraft carrier (similar fleet function). In the Navy, the difference between the two is only that one is the Enterprise (CV 6) and another the Enterprise (CVN 65). There is no II in the name, we've watched to much Star Trek. Of course, there is a good chance we will see Enterprise (CVN 78) in about 10 years. --Talos 05:35, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

My bad, I was thinking about civilian ships --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:01, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I think the magazine was in error: that "first 5 battlestars" stuff is information from Zoic, which we eventually decided to remove from BattlestarWiki as its canonicity is dubious. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:25, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Tense of article[edit]

We write pre-Miniseries events in the past tense which is perfectly fine. However much of the history of Pegasus will be told in "Razor", like the escape from the Colonies or the attack which leads to the XO being shot. Probably the stuff about the civilian fleet too. I think this should be changed to present tense after the airing (needs to updated and rewritten anyways). Otherwise it would read a bit weird, since those events are actually shown on screen.

For that matter, it might be a good idea to lock the article when the movie airs, so it doesn't come to edit conflicts and a mishmash of styles. --Serenity 09:51, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

I concur on all points. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 09:54, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Crew size[edit]

The crew size number given here is a little confusing, is this before or after the significant losses they endured? OTW 09:54, 7 December 2007 (CST)

That's the number as of the episode "Pegasus". A footnote can clarify it :) --Serenity 11:07, 7 December 2007 (CST)

Retconned model[edit]

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is probably a moot point considering the girl's been gone some time, but it seems for Exodus II they used a different model for Pegasus.

Compare this image from The Captain's Hand:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:PegasusForeBatteries.jpg

With this one from BoNC:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Pegaus_firing_forward_batteries.jpg

In the newer image the shape of the main batteries has changed and there are only four, as opposed to 8. Also, when it's making its appearance at the battle, I'm fairly sure they added a gun turret on the top of the flight pod (though I could be mistaken), it seems to be firing at 2:00 on this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9nleO5IRrM&feature=related

And I'm fully aware that this matters very very little in the greater scheme of things, this is just boredom taking hold :)

YIIMM 12:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is unsurprising, as all the CGI models underwent updates, since Zoic no longer did the special effects at that point. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply