Battlestar Wiki Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

Discussion page of Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

Article Need

Since the FTL article is primarily about the more-detailed aspects of lightspeed travel in the RDM series, a separate article, albeit brief, seemed appropriate to do here for TOS. I didn't want to mix up the two, and text here would be lost to the bulk of the FTL article if merged. Thus, I kept it separate with this article, which also helps contrast them. If anyone has the shot of Old-School Galactica moving away (her stern to us) at lightspeed, it would be good here. --Spencerian 14:08, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Scientific accuracy

Should there maybe a note stating how nonsensical the show's reliance on sublight propulsion is? They regularly visit new solar systems and there are even a few references to them moving to another galaxy. All that is impossible at such low speeds. --Serenity 10:37, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Sure. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:46, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
Please do. --Spencerian 11:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Lost Planet Ref

Should any mention be made of the discussion that Lucifer and Baltar have regarding lightspeed in Lost Planet, I? --Steelviper 10:58, 16 January 2007 (CST)

The part about Galactica being only as fast as the other ships, is already in the 2nd paragraph, but can be cited with that episode. Aside from that it's one the few direct references to lightspeed, so I'd say yes. --Serenity 11:34, 16 January 2007 (CST)

LOL. We made the same edits at the same time. --Serenity 12:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I pulled the duplicate quote, but I think everything else can stay. Now we've got an episode cite on the slowly moving second paragraph, and the unsubstantiated is now "rarely mentioned". I still don't understand how the Cylons didn't easily catch up with them whenever they wanted if they had lightspeed and the Colonials couldn't... whatever. --Steelviper 12:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

FTL for real

Well, that's a rather useless piece of text, isn't it? Also highly inaccurate. The talk of "going to lightspeed" is not going FTL at all; it's simply the fastest speed the Galactica reach using conventional speed; and it's no doubt the reference to how fast the ions that move the ship forward are accelerated out of the engines.

The FTL technology used in TOS is very close approximation of the following: Alderson Drive. One can infer this rather easily. The Galactica (and Cylons) indeed have no active FTL drive, but they do jump from solar system to solar system. Once reaching such a system, they invariably send out patrols. These patrols are quickly out of communications range. These patrols also don't go looking for hostiles, since they mostly know the Cylons are behind them. What remains; is that the vipers are looking for something; and not simply planets. There seems to only one logical conclusion; they are looking for the same something that brought them there: Star's Langrange point. These are places where two stars gravity and other emissions form a bridge, a tunnel, that can be accessed with the right technology. Once found, the fleet takes the best of any such points founds, and goes through it.

This fits with all that we've observed in TOS - the only sad thing is, that it was never explicitly shown, or explained - very possibly due to lack of budget. It also requires a complete ground up rewrite of the article, making clear distinctions between STL propulsion (the ion drive) and the FTL propulsion (the Alderson drive) and dropping just about all of the disparaging remarks, and requiring one to have an open mind, and look a bit deeper than the superficial.

It's late here, and I'm wondering how much a complete and total rewrite would go over, with remarks like the above in these discussion pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3DMaster (talk • contribs).

Hi, 3DMaster. Keep in mind that, like Star Wars before it, the Original Series was a space fantasy.
No, it wasn't. Not even close. Apart from both having carrier ships and fighters, they have nothing in common, and BSG is most definitely not space fantasy.
Scientific accuracy in the series' single season was never a priority.
That's where you're only partially right. When one looks at BSG, one gets the impression there are two camps in the production offices; one who strives as much to scientific accuracy as possible, and one side, partially by budgetary and deadline reasons, just wants to get the filming done. There are an extreme amount of scenes and events that show a continuous scientific paradigm, especially the FTL technology used, interspersed with some really iffy stuff.
Many, many contributors of the Original Series Article Project have combed through the episodes and documented an extensive amount of technology and terminology from the show, and, using the tools of derived content, have tried to piece together some semblance of the science of the show. However, while certain levels of speculation that is supported by the series' events, conversations and the like are allowed on this wiki (which strives to use canonical works only), we don't try to "make up" or associate "our" technologies or theories to fill in the gaps of the series' storylines per se. That's known as "fanwanking", and it is a form of fan fiction--none of which Battlestar Wiki allows. If you've seen something in the series that suggests that the technology used was directly based on technologies you know as well as an official source (that's cast, crew or producers from the old series) that supports your speculation, then do be bold and rewrite the article as you see fit.
Then they haven't dug very deep. But I can already see it; this place is basically: TOS is stupid, dumb stuff, so we don't have to look to deep, and don't bother with anything but a little logic to certain consistent ways things are done in the show, and nobody actually intimately knowledgeable about the show, and knows the show is asked to contribute, is asked for opinions, or any information about TOS written as such on the net has been looked up, in fact, the very least that could have been done, if you count logical deduction as idle speculation and fanwanking, would be to put in links to TOS technology sites, but even they aren't there.
Battlestar Wiki articles that speculate intentionally limit their descriptions when little or no canonical information exists, which is why you found the article as it was. Keep in mind that this article contrasts with the far-more-scientifically-based Re-imagined Series article parent, Science in the Re-imagined Series, which grounds its content much more on both observation as well as cast, crew and production sources (and all that's because the series executive producer wanted to avoid many old SF clichés and gimmicks. Original Series sourcing is much harder as you can guess, so tread lightly but have fun. --Spencerian 18:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
LOL. That's a good one. The more scientifically based re-imagined series? You obviously have got NO idea of science do you? TOS is scientifically FAR more consistent than the new series. The new series is a mess, let me point a few things out:
1. The computer technology required to produce a sentient species of robots is FAR in excess of what WE posses; and the nBSG computer technology is LESS than ours.
Not correct, actually. Before the Cylon War, the Colonials of the "nBSG" actually had much better technology than deployed in the Miniseries and on. As established in the Miniseries, the Colonials discarded much of their technology since the Cylons were able to turn it against them. (Doral mentions much of this during his presentation to the press tour on Galactica within the first hour.) It was only 40 years later when Colonials began better embracing pre-War technologies, wireless networks, and such. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
And reducing to such a tiny level that they could never do the devastatingly massive calculations required to calculate such a thing as a fold space jump generator. Also, lowering your computer capabilities is ridiculous. That wouldn't make it more difficult to hack by Cylons, but EASIER. What you need to build are better firewalls, not lower your computers computational power, and thereby making it easier to slip into holes by the opposition, it's now wonder they're so easily hacked. --3DMaster 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
2. The technology required to build their jump drive: enormous computer technology the colonials don't have, forcefield generation, plasma control physics, high-end lasers, as well as higher dimension understanding of physics. Some of it, we posses, the nBSG folks don't. All of it, those so called gimmicky scifi stuff RDM didn't want to use, or can be used to build them. For them to have the technology to build that jump drive, but not being able to build a single operational laser or energy weapon, is ridiculous in the extreme.
Actually, various scientific journals have questioned the practicality of beam weapons, particularly as a replacement of projectile weapons. Additionally, the original series never once uses forcefields (the Prison Barge didn't have any for their cells, as seen in "War of the Gods" and "Baltar's Escape"). The only known instance of energy shields ever being mentioned is by Commander Cain in "Living Legend, Part II". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
Whether or not beam weapons are practical, has no bearing on the fact that that is but a tiny fraction of the tech required to have a functioning jump drive. Also, those scientists are utterly stupid and clueless. You will run out of ammunition, you got a good enough power source, you'll hardly ever, and in case of renewable power sources like zero point energy, you'll never run out of energy to fire those weapons. Finally, generating a magnetic field around a ship with a powerful enough engine; like matter/anti-matter drive that deflects small meteors and such is easy to do; we already can if we wanted to build such a drive. Against such a field, (what Star Trek incidentally calls navigational shields) projectiles are completely useless: they'll be deflect/bent around the ship. --3DMaster 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
A little example; those laser torpedoes, those gimmicky scifi weapons the TOS vipers fired; they were conceived in the early eighties, and we have them operational in the lab now. Not quite efficient enough yet to actually use, but it'll get there. Yet the guys with the FTL drive, can't do it. Makes one laugh one's ass off.--3DMaster 18:41, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Actually, there are many TOS fans that disagree with you. For instance, Susan Paxton would seriously disagree with you on your assertion on there being two camps in the series, including many science fiction writers (Asimov one of them) railed against the series for its various scientific inaccuracies. Also, "laser torpedoes" are an oxymoron I rather not discuss. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
She probably wasn't aware of them. TOS is completely, utterly, and totally consistently written with the Galactica using those jump corridors; in fact, the much decried episode Gun on Ice Planet Zero, makes perfect sense. If that lagrange point they need to jump through, is always close by that planet, and the gun is built to cover it, there is indeed no way to avoid that gun and planet. Also, just because something is called a laser, doesn't mean it's a laser. Often thinks are named upon older conventions and the name sticks, even if strictly logically speaking the name isn't correct. Hence "Turbo Lasers" in SW/TOS:BSG not being actual "lasers" but more a stream of plasma. Laser torpedoes in that, are an extremely concentrated burst of plasma; who after a short time will overcome its own compression... rather explosively. And we actually have those weapons in the lab, as said; we have it as a solid fuel that is superheated into a plasma, contained in a cannister; it acts and behaves just like TOS BSGs laser torpedoes. --3DMaster 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

TECR link

I am removing the link to tecr.com because of the following:

  1. The article is not cited with references from the series. It is made up of various theories that attempt to explain STL and FTL travel in the series.
  2. There is consistent reference to "ion" drives for STL travel, none of which were mentioned in the original series.
  3. There is no on-screen evidence or the dialogue of the use of hyperspace or jump corridors.

Also, per the Citation Jihad, the Galactica tech manual has been identified as fanon and should not be referred to as a valid source of information. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yo, Specarian? What did I wrote you in that piece on your talk page? In short: we don't want ANYTHING here that might, possibly, indicate that TOS is more what dogma demands it to be, aka ridiculous peace of space fantasy. We will only look at direct quotes, we don't want a single shred of logic, just total illogic and deeper look at the bleeding obvious at how TOS was set, nothing, nada zilch, while we happily keep on slamming TOS. About double standards: say, Joe, are going to delete the entire nBSG propulsion page too? After all, nowhere, anywhere, in the show was there ever a single mention of Super strings, Membranes, wormholes, or folding space. Just jump, and spin. Ugh! This place is ridiculous. Ban me, remove me, I don't care.
We're not into "slamming" TOS, as you so term it. We're here to find out facts, simply put. We're not here to promote an "anti-TOS agenda"/"pro-RDM agenda"... apparently the fact that you are so quick to jump to that conclusion begins leading me to believe that you're not actually interested in helping, but in fact are here only to stir up trouble.
Also, for the record, I am a TOS fan, and supported both Richard Hatch's and DeSanto/Singer's continuation efforts. I happen love both series, but that doesn't mean that we are blind to the flaws in both series. (And since you clearly believe that we are very RDM-biased, please note that we have indicated flaws within the series, notably the Season two timeline discontinuity and "A Measure of Salvation".) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:57, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
No of course not, it just looks that way. nBSG propulsion pages is failed with baseless speculation that is never, not once, not even close being mentioned on the show. Facts? Think not. But with that it's all just fine. TOS propulsion pages, is nothing but a bunch of thinly-veiled insults; and when one would like to actually do more than just an outside link, it's not allowed to, because hey, nBSG may have baseless speculation all over the place, oBSG may not, not even in a link to the outside. You know, it's probably just me, but an encyclopedia might actually want to have something for people who want to know about other than insults, even if it's just a link to an outside source; so they can look onward to more and really verse them in everything about the show, including more than nothing but superficial looking - like, you know, the whole baseless folding and super string thing on the nBSG propulsion page. I wonder what the reaction of nBSG fans is, if I set up a TOS BSG wiki where the only information on nBSG is insults and slams on how ridiculous it is, that such utter primitive culture is without SciFi gimmicks is capable of producing an FTL drive for which one requires all those SciFi gimmicks to get it to work; thus it's nothing but useless space fantasy.
Anyone who claims this place isn't measuring with two standards is dishonest to the extreme.
And no, I'm not here just to stir up trouble; unless "just trouble" is defined as: looking with utter disbelief at nothing but thinly veiled insults on the TOS propulsion page, and wanting to add something more substantial, more honest, and counter to the going paradigm is considered "just trouble" --3DMaster 06:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
I have some issues with the theoretical portion of the page, to be honest. I'll begin spearheading a discussion on what needs to be changed on that page here. However, the present page on original series propulsion is pretty well sourced from comments on the show, unless you have behind-the-scenes information that has additional information on FTL capability in the original series. (Honestly, all the sources I am able to obtain indicate that there was extremely little thought in the scientific aspects of the show, which is apparent with the lack of magnetic boots for the spacesuits and on, as well as the Galactica's inability to de-pressurize the ship in order to quell a fire.) Also, there was a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes, and the series was so rushed that it didn't have time to develop stories properly, if you'll note the interviews that Susan Paxton did on the story editors, which are listed on this page. With these interviews, I find it extremely difficult to agree with your assertion that there were "clearly" two camps behind the scenes in terms of scientific accuracy.) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 08:57, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
We've never even seen the TOS guys in space suits. And if you say there's a lot of politicking going on, and lots of rushing, you have the multiple camps and people doing things she doesn't know about right there. Like I said above, Classic Galactica is completely consistent with, and only consistent with entering naturally existing jump corridors. And you should read the first note on the TOS propulsion place: 'TOS propulsion was not based in existing science unlike the nBSG.' First, there's no point in mentioning this except for going "Neener, neener, neener, nBSG is better than old one, ha ha!", and second it is false. Exactly what the jump drive is, and how it works has never been explained; for all we know a finger of the Greek gods they worship is in there, and it activates the gods' teleportation abilities.
And no, I don't it's pretty well sourced. It's filled with thinly veiled insults, and also riddled with base assumptions. Nowhere in the series has it ever been said, or even implied that going to "lightspeed" means FTL speeds. In fact, except for that the term was used for FTL hyper jumps in Star Wars, every thing suggests that it is indeed NOT going faster than light. To state categorically that lightspeed means faster than light, as as much a baseless assumption as the corridors in the other site.
Finally; just because you can't have anything except the bare naked facts on the wiki itself, why can't you have links to places that is more that just bare naked, superficial facts, where what's shown on screen is analyzed and a logical conclusion drawn, if necessary with the disclaimer, "Since the TOS for various reasons, both behind scenes and SFX and budget limitations never showed the ship using any kind of FTL, and it was never discussed in-show either, the following site is not absolute fact, but a elaboration on TOS FTL usage." (In fact, just about that entire sentence should be at the top of the page; and give all the possible interpretations of the show. From the bare superficial lightspeed, to something a little deeper, or say nothing at all except that sentence, and then just links to sites which go deeper.) --3DMaster 05:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
Do you remember the episode "Fire in Space", where Apollo and Starbuck conduct a spacewalk/EVA to plant charges on the hull of Galactica, thus smothering the fire with the vacuum of space? In order to stick to the hull, they had to basically use the magnetism of the charges to move along the hull of the ship...
Also, I took it upon myself to look up the definition of "lightspeed" in various dictionaries. So, from various dictionaries:
  • From m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary): a fundamental physical constant that is the speed at which electromagnetic radiation propagates in a vacuum and that has a value fixed by international convention of 299,792,458 meters per second -- symbol c
  • From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light+speed: Noun. light speed - the speed at which light travels in a vacuum; the constancy and universality of the speed of light is recognized by defining it to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second
  • From http://www.answers.com/topic/speed-of-light: The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, which is a physical constant equal to exactly 299,792.458 kilometers per second. Also known as electromagnetic constant; velocity of light.
As for the TECR.com website, again it is fanon, and has many inconsistencies as a source material, including various annoying misspellings of Cain's name (which is spelled "Cane" or "Kane" on that website) as well as the whole "Columbia-class battlestar" misinformation that's proliferated the fandom for a while now masquerading as actual information. There's also the whole "Hades" class basestar and support craft that were never explicitly mentioned in the series run, as seen here. We don't link to it because it contains unverifiable and non-canon information that's rife with inaccuracies and speculations. (In other words, it's a fan site that, while fun to read, it doesn't add true depth to the series, but rather a combination of semi-realism and faux fact. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:12, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


3DMaster, I support Joe's comments below, without further comments. TOS and RDM shows are often inconsistent in what they show and explain. This is a wiki on a work of fiction, and our goals here, ultimately, are to (1) document all of it, and if applicable, (2) place the information in some sort of context to understand the story. The second item can be done through citations, plausible speculation and logical deduction, or other official sources. I've read and re-read the entries here, and it is obvious you are fond of one show over another, or more specifically, sensitive to the limited coverage that TOS has here. TOS consists of one 24-episode season. The RDM series is much longer. I was one of many that sparked interest over a year ago into substantial improvement and expansion on TOS. The results, from many many contributor hours, is what you see here. These contributors were held to the same standards as RDM articles. But there are limits; TOS existed when there wasn't an internet to spread podcasts from cast and crew. Videotapes were just getting started. There wasn't an "official guide" for the show content, and what was documented was in a few old Starlog magazines. As RDM appeared, the cross-references and comparisons to TOS were inevitable, and, in the case of topics such as Pegasus (RDM), even needed.

We greatly value criticism on the wiki. Rather than complain about a bias, perhaps it would better for you to actually edit the articles to make their perspective neutral. When it comes to any article, however, less is more. Not all articles can, or should, be expanded more than what the official source material has provided. TOS hasn't many official sources, as such, their articles will not be detailed and may never be, and that is that. If you feel there is some sort of bias to RDM, you are right, but only in that the RDM series is currently airing, is highly successful, and has mounds of data to sort out right now.

Where does everyone get this idea that nBSG is highly successful? It's getting no more ratings, and in fact recently had an instant of less ratings, than the RERUNS of the WORST, LEAST POPULAR Star Trek series on the SAME CHANNEL. It is as far removed from successful as you can get.--3DMaster 08:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I, for one, however, am not attempting to continue this debate over whether the wiki is "slamming" TOS. I was alive and watching TOS as it first aired before many contributors here were born, and TOS has a special place in my heart, and defend TOS articles with the same zeal as I do RDM articles. Feel free to edit, but note that inaccuracies and unsourced materials will be removed, tirelessly. If you find that we persistently remove or seriously truncate most or all edits you make, perhaps you can review the whys of its removal and determine for yourself whether this wiki is further worth your time. But many contributors have spent hours of their time to make Battlestar Wiki a genuine, non-fan fiction resource, and I find it disingenuous (and rude) for any contributor to mock their efforts. --Spencerian 07:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I don't see the point. If you can't even add a link to an outside Battlestar tech manual, you can't do anything. -- 3DMaster 08:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
An outside Battlestar tech manual that is entirely fan generated. This is not to discount the merit, logic, or value of their work. Just that we're trying to let the shows stand on their own merits, living or dying by what the production teams produce. If we accepted the "Galactica tech manual" into the realm of canon, we'd be setting ourselves up to potentially accept other works of fan fiction. I for one, don't want the job of determining the relative "canonicty" of a given fan work. Either the information is from a canon source (show, cast, crew, official release, etc.) or it is not. Here we've chosen to stick with the former.
That being said, the notes section currently needs a visit from the Concision Fairy. It does read as condescending in places, and fanwanky in others. Let's stick to the facts. The new series has spent just as much on-screen time explaining the underlying FTL technology as the original series (which is to say, none). --Steelviper 10:12, 29 March 2007 (CDT)