Share Your Thoughts!

Shape the future of Battlestar Wiki with this short survey!

There may be algae cookies and hydronic mushies. Mmm... Trick or Treat!

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

I think the "fan estimate" of 6-8 Viper squads is off. According to, the Galactica had only 2 Viper squadrons. Since it was a museum ship, it's possible this is less than the usual complement.

-- John Reese

Hi John,

Thanks for contributing! It's nice to see that the site's picking up now!

Actually, there are bits of information on the (or website that are suspect, such as Tigh's first name being "Paul", as opposed to the canonized "Saul". We mainly use the episodes for canonical information; the Zoic, as the Colonial Archivist (Ernestborg9) can tell you, is mainly conjecture unless canonical info shows up to disprove it.

However, Battlestars in general carry 6-8 sqads; Galactica does carry two. (Or did, as I'm sure that the Galactica is now left with, at most, one full squadron of Mark IIs from the Miniseries, over the course of the series.)

- Joe

Other Battlestars

Since the encounter of the Pegasus we have learned of another type of Battlestar, will this page be edited in regard of this?

Another point is the appearence of the Galactica before the ship has been refitted after the war. Is it clear that it had the appearance of the orginal show or is this unclear?


I've updated the page to reflect that this page deals primarily with the original battlestar class, of which Galactica is a member. I added a note on Pegasus and her class. There is a page for the Mercury-class battlestar, which could be edited and updated as this one as we get more technical information on that ship class. Note that only battlestars mentioned in an episode are canon; the rest technically may be made-up until then. Spencerian 19:00, 26 September 2005 (EDT)

Battlestar Article Structure

Since the term battlestar is a category of ship (analogous to space faring aircraft-carriers) shouldn't the content discussing battlestars in the RDM series, in overview terms, be moved to the Battlestar (RDM) page, and there list the two classes we know of so far, the Mercury class and the "Galactica" class (i.e. "Original battlestar (RDM)" which we don't know the name of)..?

This would then have the Original battlestar (RDM) page discussing the overall details of the "Galactica class" battlestar, like we are doing with the Mercury class battlestar page which is about the class, and the Pegasus (RDM) page which deals with the specific vessel.

So in essence the Battlestar (RDM) page is the "root" page for the RDM entry on battlestars as a whole, then the Original battlestar (RDM) page about the "Galactica class" battlestars in general, and the Galactica (RDM) page about the specifc vessel Galactica:

Proposed restructuring

Thus leaving the Battlestar page as the top level disambiguation page between series. So everything within the RDM series about battlestars would fall within the outlined framework above beginning with the Battlestar (RDM) page.

We don't have much content to say about battlestars in general, and what we do would be redundant with Colonial Fleet. I agree that "other battlestar" references should probably be removed from this page, though. --Peter Farago 01:39, 2 December 2005 (EST)
Why would you want to remove reference to the other battlestars in this page? There are references made as to how there were 12 of the Original RDM class battlestars each representing one of the colonies (miniseries). Seems to me that the general overview information about the Original RDM class as a whole should be the content here, with listings of and links to the individual vessels of this class (Galactica being one of course). — Lestatdelc 17:23, 3 December 2005 (EST)
I think the Battlestar (RDM) link is a nice redirect link to Original Battlestar (RDM), but I'd avoid yet another disambig page. The show is focused on the events of Galactica. It is very likely that Pegasus will disappear, one way or another, and that the modern battlestar will a footnote with no further additional data. Most readers will also be thinking of Galactica when they hear "battlestar" and not the lesser battlestars, almost all of which are mentioned-only and are very likely to remain that way, flashbacks notwithstanding. --Spencerian 10:36, 2 December 2005 (EST)
I probably should not have used the term disambiguation page as it would be an actual content page (was actually thinking more of a root entry or overview entry), but rather a page devoted to general overview content on the nature of battlestars as capital ships, discussion of general concepts of flight operations, battlegroup structures, etc. With the links to the various classes of battlestars. While I understand that we may not get an abundance of canonical info on them from the show itself, I guess this begs the question of the extent to which the encyclopedia content is about "the show" and how much is about the Galactica universe within the show? I personally was hoping that this would be the platform and vehicle to collect and fill-in and expand on the later. Where things are structured and presented as a "NPOV" encyclopedia "from" the Galactica universe (or as sometimes referred to in gaming terms as a 'poetic map' or 'real map' that a player-character would have). Think of it as if we had an "actual" Hitchhiker's Guide (albeit "serious and accurate" not the apocryphal one portrayed in the books and movies, etc) "from" the Galactica universe which is then 'viewed' here (i.e. the entry content of the encyclopedia portions of this site) — Lestatdelc 17:23, 3 December 2005 (EST)
I really think Colonial Fleet is perfectly adequate to that task. --Peter Farago 19:12, 3 December 2005 (EST)
Ok, now I am a bit confused. Becuase before (I just read now) you seemed to be advocating basically the same thing when you said:
"We should definitely namespace it into Battlestar (TOS), Battlestar (VG), Battlestar (RDM). Also, we could split the RDM article into "Battlestar" as a general concept, and the unnamed Galactica-class battlestar specifically - think Aircraft carrier, Yorktown class aircraft carrier, Nimitz class aircraft carrier. --Peter Farago 00:22, 29 September 2005 (EDT)"
Which is why I was porposing shifting sections of overview content about battlestars and the basics of them, to the "root" battlestar (RDM) page (no longer a redriect)... then specifics about each class as the next level pages, then entries pages on each specific vessel. — Lestatdelc 21:06, 3 December 2005 (EST)

Armament Details

  • With 512 Point-Defense Turrets, thats 1024 PD Guns, and from onscreen evidence, the Rounds Per Minute is atleast 90 or more. (fan estimation.)
    • Assuming a firing rate of 2 rounds per second, thats 120 rounds per minute, and from all turrets equates to 122,880 rounds per minute. 2048 rounds per second. Thats alot. (fan estimation.)
    • Considering a raider has been shown to be destroyed with around 4-10 direct hits, this means that should raiders enter the firing solution, would take only a few seconds to get blown up. If targetted by the PD turrets, less then a second. It would take a single turret 1 second to destroy a raider. That isn't accounting for maneuverability of the raider however. (fan estimation.)
  • Also, with 24 Rail gun turrets, thats, 48 rail gun , Barrels, if you will. Atleast 960 Rounds per minute (1 round per 3 seconds)
    • Onscreen evidence shows around 1 round firing per 2-3 seconds (please correct if wrong). Going with the 1 round-2 seconds, you get a single turret firing in a minute, 60 rounds. times that by 24 and you come to 1,440 rounds per minute.
    • Due the turrets being "rail guns", the rounds go much faster then the rounds fired from the PD turrets. This means that a single hit to a raider should destroy it due to the kenetic energy imparted to the raider. If this is true, then a battlestar, with accurate aiming, could take out 1,440 raiders in a minute. Thats like, double the estimated capacity of a basestar! Thats if every shot is a direct hit.

This is interesting. Do you have a source for: the number of point-defense turrets, the number of rail guns, and the existance of rail guns (on-screen evidence indicates a three-rail design, which is inconsistant with the physics of a rail gun)? I don't think any of those things have been shown or mentioned on screen yet.

This line of inquiry might enable us to speculate on the Battlestar's total ammo store, if we can derive our estimates from good data. However, the concept of a Basestar sending two raider wings directly into Galactica's firing solution is a little silly. Galactica's firing solution has been used to provide cover for vipers and screen the ship from nukes, not to target enemy fightercraft directly. --Peter Farago 11:55, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

Aramaments - Defensive
  • 24 x primary railgun turrets (mounting 2 guns apiece)
  • 512 x point-defense turrets (mounting 2 guns apiece)
according to the wiki entry.
also pictures on there show the existance of the rail guns. 8 ontop. 8 on the under side of the 'crocodile head', and 8 on the underbelly.
the Rate of Fire is all my doing however.
can someone get me a short video of when the ship actually fires? cuz im actualy needing this much detail for something im doing (and using this wiki as a reference for).
its guessing though i counted erm, 498 turrets myself.
and worked out for that too , ive got those calculations somewhere.
keeping in mind some of the personnel guns they have, that fire ate more-then-1-round-per-second (in some cases. for instance a gattling gun, while not seen onscreen they likely have one, what with theyre parralels with earth tech)..
its more then realistic RoF for each turret no?
asfor the rail gun RoF
on second thought,
ill need to re-examine the footage of the rail guns firing.
theyre not said to be rail guns but theres a shot somewhere of 4 turrets , that resemble the rail guns, firing.
ok ill stop now.
thx for the, well, not going mad :)
edit - oh sos forget this: --Alex mcpherson 12:26, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
Be careful when citing unsourced fan-estimates in your calculations. I don't think those stats on turret count should even be there without a source. This article needs some serious cleanup in that regard. As for rate of fire, that can probably be estimated by frame-stepping through the relevant effects scenes in the miniseries. --Peter Farago 12:39, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
Shall I upload my modified pics of the underbelly, top and side somewhere and link them in here for others to count? i can link to both the unmodified and the modified versions so people can compare each individual one. and asfor the frame-stepping, is there a scene of the galactica firing, upclose in the first 5 episodes? --Alex mcpherson 14:04, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
I think it would be better for you to upload it to your own web space if possible and then post links here, if that's possible. It would be interesting to see. Close-ups on Galactica's guns firing can be found in the Miniseries, and I believe the footage was reused in "33". --Peter Farago 16:57, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
I just wanted to point out that the Galactica has 20 heavy turrets, not 24. There are eight on each of the dorsal and ventral sides and four under the nose of the fore-section. You can see these on the Zoic high-res pictures of the Big G. --Talos 19:53, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
I uploaded a picture to show what I mean. --Talos 20:09, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
BSG Ortho Bottom.jpg
Excellent. Can the smaller guns also be seen on the elevations? --Peter Farago 20:29, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
Yes, especially on the flight pod. There are other batteries along the top and bottom of the fore-section split, the top of the central hull, below the flight pods, and along both upper and lower engine pods. These are just the ones I've found though. I'll upload the other ortho views now. --Talos 22:35, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
Actualy i can show you where the extra 4 come from!!! they are partially hidden . 2 on either side on the crocidile head. the hull plating left on either side of the underbelly, look there and youll see the other 4. *smiles like a know-it-all. --Alex mcpherson 01:19, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
If you mean the ones visible in the ventral elevation, I think Talos was including those in his count. --Peter Farago 01:35, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
those are fully visible. theres 4 at the very front and 2 either side of the underbelly partially visible. ill upload the pic when i get the change.
No need, I see them. Odd place for them, their range of motion must be quite constrained. --Peter Farago 01:39, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
(okay all these colons are really making this page long vertically. go 3-4-5-3 etc lol. anyway. ive uploaded to imageshack the pic so if anyone wants to count them and compare like i did go ahead. erm its 6:45am and had 3 hours sleep so , i forgot, how do i link? lol. (edit into a link for us. cheers) btw the pic is huge. --Alex mcpherson 01:44, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
Man, those large turrets are well hidden. I did not see them until now. You can also see the long line of small turrets along the edges of the main body. Look at the red markings on the bottom and go straight down until you reach the edge. You'll see them. --Talos 06:20, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

Changed "Each barrel fires non-explosive rounds in bursts" to explosive rounds. I mean, take a look at the screen cap from "Scattered" right in the same section and the data on Galactica's main batteries. Her large guns aren't capable of generating the dense flak barrier seen in the episode, their rate of fire and coverage are just too low. Besides, her main guns are generally used in direct fire roles. Even assuming Galactica's secondary batteries are only firing the same rounds as the Vipers (which they probably don't, Galactica's secondaries look considerably larger than Viper's guns), a 25-30mm round is plenty large to have a time-fuse. --David Templar 14:04, 17 March 2006 (CST)

I'd accept not mentioning whether they're incendiary rounds or not, but we have no positive evidence to that effect. I think that it's entirely plausible that the eight dorsal batteries, each firing two rounds in tandem every 2.5 seconds (for a total of 6.4 rounds per second) could produce a flack screen as dense as the one we saw in "Scattered". Remember, based on the explosion we saw in the miniseries, the burst radius of each flak round is very large. --Peter Farago 18:50, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Except large explosions weren't characteristic of the flak barrier in "Scattered". Watch the episode again, the barrier consists of large numbers of *little* explosions surrounding most of the ship. Further more, 6.4 rounds a second still wouldn't be enough to cover a ship the size of Galactica the way the flak barrier in the episode did, especially since Galactica's primary batteries have a limited arc (they can't depress all that low). --David Templar 20:25, 17 March 2006 (CST)
As seen in this screencap (, the aft turrets cluster is engaging off to the right of the the Viper with concentrated fire. However, there are flak rounds going off all around the ship. The front cluster can't generate such a large cloud alone, especially when you watch that scene in motion. Furthermore, since the secondary batteries are large enough to fire fused rounds of today and we've extrapolated much of BSG's KEW characteristics from modern cannons already, there's no reason why we can't here as well. --David Templar 11:41, 18 March 2006 (CST)
More screencaps to support my position.

Galactica's main guns busy against the Baseship while her secondaries fire flak, note the explosions around the ship. Some are missiles going off, but some aren't: --David Templar 15:27, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Where exactly does the count of 24 large turrets onboard the Galactica come from? We've only seen 8 turrets and assuming symmetry between dorsal and ventral mountings, that'd still only be 16. Galactica's preference of exposing only her topside towards the enemy makes me very skeptical of the potential of large batteries on her underbelly. If she had guns there, it'd make a lot more sense if she fought while orienting the target to her horizontal axis, so both top and bottom batteries can be brought to bear. --David Templar 11:41, 18 March 2006 (CST)

The 24 figure has been well established earlier on this talk page. Galactica has eight turreted bow batteries, in addition to eight dorsal and eight ventral. --Peter Farago 16:37, 18 March 2006 (CST)
I stand informed. --David Templar 18:05, 18 March 2006 (CST)

This Article Needs Work

Who will join me in stripping this article of non-canon information and clearly labelling sources? --Peter Farago 19:07, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

A challenge, but I like that. Perhaps we can move the Zoic information to a new page, as it is close to canon as we've got since they are part of the production process, although little of their info can be collaborated yet. We probably need to have this page moved to "Original Battlestar" or "Battlestar (RDM)" or somehow disamb it. Or, just offload the TOS info to another page. In a way I'm also big on placing the tech stats with the other technology pages to keep it easy to edit and read for both pages. Spencerian 22:28, 28 September 2005 (EDT)
We should definitely namespace it into Battlestar (TOS), Battlestar (VG), Battlestar (RDM). Also, we could split the RDM article into "Battlestar" as a general concept, and the unnamed Galactica-class battlestar specifically - think Aircraft carrier, Yorktown class aircraft carrier, Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
Lastly, we must find an actual link to the Zoic source on all these details if we're going to keep them. --Peter Farago 00:22, 29 September 2005 (EDT)
That sounds good. I should be able to do the heavy work of moving data from the general "Battlestar" page to new pages for TOS and RDM battlestars and classes we know, and each of these pages will have links to their appropriate TOS or RDM named battlestar page. I may not strike the Zoic stuff yet, but at least by moving matters to separate pages, it will be much more manageable. Spencerian 18:28, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

The heavy work is done. This article has become a disamb page for all battlestar information. Unfortunately I did not properly move the Galactica page to Galactica (RDM), but created a new page instead. The content of the new page is OK, but the Galactica page should redirect to Galactica (RDM) to keep its history. There are several new pages that link from this page. The Pegasus (RDM) page deserved an article of its own and its page was moved, while Pegasus TOS from the original Battlestar page had only a few lines that were merged into Battlestar (TOS). The new Galactica RDM class has Battlestar (RDM) for that general information. Mercury-class was moved to Mercury-class Battlestar (RDM) to keep its history and keep article consistency. Galactica has a TOS and RDM page (note earlier screw up) as well as Battlestars of TOS. I hope this aids greatly in keeping mixed information from becoming a bother. This does create bad links throughout, but the primary ones to catch are Galactica (which should redirect to Galactica (RDM) unless on a TOS area), Pegasus (which should go to Pegasus (RDM) if new, or Battlestar (TOS) if not). Comments, criticizm and help are appreciated. Spencerian 13:32, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

Okay, I just finished a bit of cleanup. I've moved "Mercury-class Battlestar (RDM)" to "Mercury-Class Battlestar", since there's no need to disambiguate it from a TOS page of the same name that might ever exist. I've also corrected the namespace on "Galactica (Video Game 2003) to "Galactica (Video Game)", which is the namespace the other articles use. I've created a redirect from "Galactica" to "Galactica (RDM)", and moved the talk bage from "Talk:Battlestar" to "Talk:Battlestar (RDM)" (there were no TOS-specific comments there). --Peter Farago 17:56, 30 September 2005 (EDT)
Thanks. The Mercury-class remove makes sense. Although I added RDM on those namespaces for consistency, your move simplifies the namespaces. There have been many games for BSG over the years, thus the use of the year just in case someone starts discussing other older games or new games are created. We can worry about that later. With the separations, we can see how some pages really could use more content, especially the TOS Galactica page. That's pretty sad, when you think of it. Perhaps another enterprising person can fill it will some general history. Spencerian 18:02, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

Battletar Tally

This page, like Mercury-class Battlestar is for a specific (albeit unnamed) class of battletar. A tally of the fleet's unclassified battlestars is not appropriate here, and should go in Colonial Fleet.

Makes sense. For lack of a better place to put it, I left it as a vestigial part from its former article. Spencerian 12:52, 3 October 2005 (EDT)


Battlestar isn't a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized in article names. --Peter Farago 18:04, 3 October 2005 (EDT)

I've been wrestling with that. So, when using battlestar, it seems fine to capitalize it as an article when next to a battlestar name, as in "Battlestar Galactica left for Caprica". But when discussing the ship it should be "battlestar" just as we would use "carrier" and not "Carrier" for aircraft carriers. I find the use of "the battlestar Galactica awkward: no definitive article required there when the ship name is next to it. An item for the Standards page? Spencerian 10:06, 4 October 2005 (EDT)
Based on usage on the Wikipedia WWII articles, it would be either "the battlestar Galactica left for Caprica" or just "Galactica left for Caprica". The only time Battlestar should be capitalized is in the title of the show. --Peter Farago 11:50, 4 October 2005 (EDT)
So say they all. It shall be done. Spencerian 12:41, 4 October 2005 (EDT)


In the Miniseries, Geata reports that the chief says it will be three hours to load all the warheads. I think this establishes that Galactica was, in fact, loading nukes from Ragnar, and that the five it departed the system with (c.f. Bastille Day) were all it could carry. The number does seem low to me, but what other sort of warhead would they be talking about? --Peter Farago 19:16, 30 December 2005 (EST)

Maybe conventional missile warheads and bombs for the Vipers, possibly conventional warheads for Galactica, and warheads for the shells fired by the main cannons. It shouldn't take three hours to load five warheads, even nukes. It's possible that Ragnar only had five warheads. --Talos 20:05, 30 December 2005 (EST)
The main cannons would probably fire shells, not warheads, and we haven't seen any non-nuclear warheads used by the Colonials so far. I agree that it's possible Ragnar's stores were the limiting factor, though, rather than Galactica's capacity. --Peter Farago 20:13, 30 December 2005 (EST)
Shells and warheads are two ways of talking about fused explosive payloads, the difference is in the mechanical execution rather than the function. The more we see of the main batteries in BSG, the more they look like the chemical energy driven weapons of today (most recently, the Pegasus' guns discharging fiery clouds). In that case, since we know firing nukes from artillery pieces is possible (Galactica's guns look much larger than the 203mm of the US Army) AND Galactica's nukes are shown to be very compact, there's every reason to believe that gun batteries are a possible way of delivering nuclear warheads. --David Templar 11:51, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Article Title

Something Memory Alpha does for articles on unnamed ship classes is refer to them as "___ type" rather than "___ class", where the article would be named after the most prominent ship of the class rather than the (unknown) lead ship. You can see this at:

What do our military experts think of this sort of nomenclature? --Peter Farago 19:34, 1 February 2006 (EST)

That sounds good, the only question is: Is it battlestar Galactica-type, or Galactica-type battlestar? --Talos 19:55, 1 February 2006 (EST)
I'd go for "Galactica type battlestar" to match "Mercury class battlestar", personally. --Peter Farago 21:00, 1 February 2006 (EST)
I tend to agree. "Original battlestar" as a title is both ambiguous (is this page about the first battlestar ever built?) and clumsy. Galactica-type Battlestar should be the new title, and the move should be done sooner rather than later. --BMS 22:52, 6 February 2006 (EST)
I concur, and we should make similar it to what we have as shown: "Galactica type battlestar" (no hyphens). --Spencerian 23:40, 6 February 2006 (EST)

Bow batteries

There's a new line about bow batteries, but doesn't that apply to the Mercury-class (Pegasus) and not the Galactica type battlestar? --Steelviper 19:20, 20 February 2006 (EST)

Yes. I'm removing it. --Peter Farago 20:38, 20 February 2006 (EST)
I was in the middle of doing that and got an edit conflict. Oh well. --Talos 20:40, 20 February 2006 (EST)

Where exactly did this quote come from?

I removed the following quote from this page, because while it attributes who said the quote, we don't have a source for the quote (i.e. where it came from).

I was asking Gary Hutzel to give me the technical specs just last week, actually. I think he described the flight pods [hangar decks] as being about four football fields in length." (source: Robert Falconer)

Please provide a source for the quote (whether it be an interview, bulletin board post, etc.) ASAP. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin 10:37, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Capacity of Galactica's Hangers

I'd like to point something out about the fighter carring capabilities of battlestars. Apparently all fighters on battlestars are carried in the 2 flight pods(one flight pod in Galactica's case). Each flight pod as stated in the Galactica Type Battlestar "is almost twice the length of a Nimitz class carrier, is some 150ft (46m) wider and is approximately as tall as a Nimitz class carrier measured from the waterline to the top of the carrier's communications and ELINT tower." Now assuming that the hangar deck on the Nimitz is as long as the flight deck (which is not),considering that the lower level of the flight pod of the Galactica is the hangar for that flight pod and not taking in to account that the flight pod is wider then the Nimitz hull at the level of the hangar deck, the surface of the hangar deck in a flight pod is twice that of a Nimitz class carrier. Galactica has at last 4 times the hangar space of the Nimitz. The Nimitza can carrie 85 aircraft, 50 of which ar fighters. So I don't know how the person who wrote this article came up with the figure of 80 Vipers carried in a fully armed battlestar,since this number would't even fill a quarter of the hangar space.What did they do with the rest of the hangar, play football maybe, or baseball? Take in to acoount that a Viper is about 8 times smaller in volume than an F-14, having half the lenght,wingspan and height, and a raptor just about as big. A Galactica type battlestar would be able to carry at least 400 Vipers and Raptors.

I was looking at the orthos of Big-G a second ago and I think that the hanger isn't a very wide structure. The elevator that 2276NC lands on in the Mini is in the center of the hanger and is shown to be significantly off-center from the flight deck. The launch tubes also seem to take up alot of the flight pod. Even the Nimitz class can carry more aircraft than they do. Plus, Galactica has to carry Raptors, a half dozen or so, so it's not just Vipers. --Talos 16:03, 15 March 2006 (CST)
My thinking is like this picture. The box I drew extends across all the launch tubes visible in the side view, plus a little in the rear for maintenance and storage. This would protect the hanger from damage, like after the nuke in the Mini. --Talos 16:12, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Hanger example
As far as "what else is all the hanger space used for", we've seen ships as large as Colonial One docking inside the flight pods. (Although Colonial One isn't that large...) --Peter Farago 18:02, 15 March 2006 (CST)

The area you drew Talos is still larger the the hangar of the Nimitz. Look at the picture that compares the Nimitz to the Galactica, and take in to accout that the hangar deck has a smaller width then the then the flight deck. The rectangle that you drew is about the width of the hanagar on a Nimitz and is still longer. And you should take in to account that a Viper Mk VII according to the page on this site is 9.8643 m long has a wingspan of 5.61 m and is 2.9508 m high (in flight, without landing gear.) the Naval fighter equivalent woould be the F-18 C/D(I'm not considering the larger E/F variant) which is has an overall length of 17,07, an width of 8.38 m wings folded and a height of 4,66m. The F-18 C/D is almost twice as long as wide and as tall as a Viper. A Nimtz class carrier carries 50 F-18 (both the C/D variant and the larger E/F variant which has replaced the F-14 in all but 2 naval squadrons). A Galactica type should be able to carrie at least 90 Vipers and 35 oher suport aircraft larger then the Raptor (the 35 suport aircraft carried buy the Nimitz are all larger then the Raptor) in a single flight pod.--DArhengel 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I went back to the DVDs and it appears that they only store Vipers along one side of the hanger, with most of the other wall being launch tubes. In the mini, there is a nice shot down the hanger after Apollo lands. A Mk VII is parked in a niche and going by that, it looks like the hanger is ~20 meters wide (useable space, not including supports, etc). The hanger appears to be very long but narrow which would make the best use of the space considering the size of the craft and the need for launch tubes and elevators (I believe the elevators are between the banks of launch tubes). I'll go figure out the length and update the example I showed above. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, by the way, it's a fun topic for me. --Talos 14:09, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Medical Capabilites of a Battlestar


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. --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 00:57, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

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