Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

62nd Battlestar Group

2005-12-22T21:52:14Z

Bronzite:

#REDIRECT [[Battlestar Group]]

Laser bola

2005-12-22T21:27:35Z

Bronzite: Spelling Correction

The '''laser bola''' is a traditional weapon of the [[Borellian Nomen]]. Several are usually slung on belts by the Nomen. When thrown, they appear as two glowing balls connected by a red line (presumably the laser). ([[The Man with Nine Lives (TOS)|The Man with Nine Lives]], [[Baltar's Escape (TOS)|Baltar's Escape]])

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:TOS]]

User talk:Bronzite

2005-12-22T19:25:11Z

Bronzite:

Welcome!

If you can use the newer iTunes 6 music player from Apple (works on Macs or Windows XP), you can download and watch BSG from your computer through iTunes for $1.99 each. You don't need an iPod (video-enabled or not) for this, and new episodes that start in 2 weeks should be available next day after airing. Enjoy! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:08, 21 December 2005 (EST)
:Thanks, I hope to be able to grab the episodes of iTunes when they start arriving. --Bronzite 14:25, 22 December 2005 (EST)

Talk:Imperious Leader/Archive 1

2005-12-22T17:28:05Z

Bronzite: Barkol on Usenet

Again, who or what is Barkol? To the best of my knowledge, this name has NEVER been mentioned in ANY Galactica project.

:While working the "Wanted" pages, I ran across Barkol, and I can't find anything about it. The only references I can find related to Barkol and Galactica are on this site. Anybody have any idea where the name is mentioned? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:38, 20 December 2005 (EST)
::I too was completely stumped by Barkol. --[[User:MASON|Mason]] 14:57, 20 December 2005 (EST)
:::If nobody has any objections, I propose that we remove all (3) references to Barkol. If something turns up, we could always add it back in. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 11:24, 22 December 2005 (EST)
::Barkol is mentioned in one Usenet post from 2000, a review of The Gun On Ice Planet Zero, located at [http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.tv/browse_thread/thread/948b8dd441cf8a8/f4a686ceeb5a28fb?lnk=st&q=Barkol+Galactica&rnum=1&hl=en#f4a686ceeb5a28fb]. Can't find any other mention of it, though. --[[User:Bronzite|Bronzite]] 12:26, 22 December 2005 (EST)

Talk:Water/Archive 1

2005-12-22T15:16:22Z

Bronzite: Question on the fate of the lost water

==The Lost Water==

I realize from the blog entries that this episode was rather hacked up, but I was wondering; why is there never an attempt to recover the water ''Galactica'' blew overboard? The external shot of the tank rupturing beautifully shows the water blasting out of the tanking and freezing almost instantly as it hits the void, but there's never any discussion of going out there with a cargo net and recovering the ice, which certainly couldn't have made it very far in the timeframe the episode takes place in. Was there ever a stated reason this tactic wasn't employeed, or is there some fundamental scientific issue I'm not seeing with trying to recover the escaped water?

User:Bronzite

2005-12-21T21:55:49Z

Bronzite:

A poor Battlestar fan who doesn't get the SciFi channel.

Talk:Battlestar Group/Archive 1

2005-12-21T21:29:56Z

Bronzite: /* Group */

The designation Battlestar Group 75 would have no more relation to the hull number of a BattleStar then that if US Navy ship to the Task Force number it was assigned to. Example Task Force 38 (WW-II) was the same ships as Task Force 58, all that changed was which Admiral was in charge. Similar statements can be made for AirGroups.

== Group ==

''"Curiously, Aaron Doral states that Galactica was one of the original 12 Battlestars built during the early days of the Cylon War, which makes this designation number curiously high."''

Um...not really. For example, the first airborne unit in the US Army was the 82nd Airborne Division - it doesn't mean that there were 81 airborne diivsions before it, it meant that it was the 82nd division of the Army, and that it was designed to operate airborne. The 75th Battlestar Group might have been the 75th group in the Colonial Fleet, but the first one to have battlestars in it. And there's no reason that the Galactica couldn't have been shuffled around to other, or newer, Fleet units, especially given what we know happened after the end of the war. Someone should change this articvle to reflect that. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 15:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

: We may also want to keep an eye out tonight to see what Battlestar Group the ''Pegasus'' was a part of. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 15:47, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
:: I believe their uniforms said [[62nd Battlestar Group]] - can anyone who taped it confirm? [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 13:35, 24 September 2005 (EDT)
:::I have it on tape but I cannot tell; the crest is on screen so it is "canonical" but it's too fuzzy to see. I've only got it on regular tape so I can't DVD zoom or anything. Maybe it's displayed on their flight deck: I noticed that "BSG-75" is emblazoned on the flight deck of ''Galactica'' (look when Raptors land). However, I don't know if we have a shot of someone landing on ''Pegasus''. A good question for RDM's blog? ---Ricimer, 24 Sept, 2005

Do we know for certain that it HAS to be an acronym? US battleships were given the prefix BB - obviously not battleship. Carriers are CV - C for carrier, V for "heavier than air aircraft" obviously not an acronym. Perhaps Battlestar is a class and BSG stands for something else. It could also be certianly used to explain the number sequencing too - ie Galactica being number 12 of the original Battlestars, but having the number 75.

:Actually, those hull numbers are classification. For the base type of a hull, its just the first letter repeated (hence, BB for Battleship, DD for Destroyer, etc.) Roles of the basic class are indicated by changing the second letter. Futher variants are described by adding a third letter. In the case of aircraft carriers, the ship's primary classification is Cruiser, giving it a base classification of CC, however, aircraft carriers are special-purpose cruisers. In their case, the word chosen to describe their role was Aviation, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, in the early 20th century when this schema was enacted, CA was already taken by Cruiser - Armoured, or heavily armored cruisers, so the Navy used the second letter, V, as the type designator for the aircraft carrier classification, yielding the now-familiar CV (and later, CVE, CVA, CVN, etc.) If we were to assume that BSG is a hull classification as opposed to a taskforce number, using the US Navy naming convention (other countries and planets actual mileage may vary), it would translate to Battleship (B) Scout (S) Guided Missile (G), or a Battleship built for a scouting role armed with Guided Missiles. Obviously that doesn't describe [[Galactica]] by any stretch of the imagination, so either 1) BSG is in fact a taskforce number, 2) BSG-75 is Galactica's hull number using some hitherto unknown scheme (like Star Trek's NCC/NAR/NX system), or 3) it has some other meaning not covered here. --[[User:Bronzite|Bronzite]] 16:29, 21 December 2005 (EDT)

==Galactica & Pegasus==

Why note move this page to BSG and have BSG-75 and whatever number the Pegasus ends up being both redirect there? There's not much to say about either group in particular, so much as the BSG as a concept and which ones are known. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:45, 26 September 2005 (EDT)

==Pegasus Group Number==

This was contentious for some time, since the screenshots are really quite blurry, but this image posted by [[User:Talos|Talos]] on [[Talk:Pegasus (RDM)]] resolved the matter to my satisfaction:

[[Image:Cain_Pegasus_emblem_BSG_63.jpg]]

If there's still disagreement, we can note the assignment as tentative. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:54, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

*I am familiar with this image from the previous discussion: I can't tell if I'm seeing an "8", a "6", or a "2". I feel this image is too fuzzy. No, we should not note it as tentative, because it's really hard to tell. We can just wait until "Ressurection Ship"--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:57, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

Talk:Mercury/Archive 1

2005-12-21T21:13:32Z

Bronzite:

Have we confirmed that the Colonial Fleet uses the lead ship of a class to designate the class, as opposed to using some other naming convention? --[[User:Bronzite]]