Number Seven

2009-02-15T12:40:38Z

CTerry:

{{Character Data
|photo=
|age=
|colony=
|birthname=
|callsign=
|seen=
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status=
|role= Humanoid Cylon
|rank=
|actor=
|cylon= y
|name= Daniel
}}
"'''Number Seven,'''" also known as "Daniel", is a [[humanoid Cylon]] whose line is destroyed by [[Number One]] ([[No Exit]]) some time before the second Cylon war. One of eight Cylon models created by the [[Final Five]], the amniotic fluid in which all the Seven copies were maturing is contaminated and the genetic formula is corrupted by One in a fit of jealousy. [[Ellen Tigh]] says that One was angry at her for playing favorites, and that she might have been.

According to Ellen, Number Seven was creative, sensitive and an artist.

It was stated by Ellen that One's methods for wiping out the Sevens were more permanent than [[boxing]] and Anders states that Daniel died, implying that no copies of the Number Seven model survived. Although, it is worth noting that the [[Resurrection Hub]]'s destruction means that if any copies were boxed, they are truly dead regardless of what measures may have been taken to circumvent what the Ones did.

{{Characters (RDM Cylons)}}
{{Dead Characters}}

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Characters]]
[[Category:Characters (RDM)]]
[[Category:Cylons]]
[[Category:Cylons (RDM)]]
[[Category:Deceased Characters (RDM)]]
[[Category:Mentioned-Only Characters (RDM)]]
[[Category:RDM]]

Talk:Valkyrie/Archive 1

2006-11-19T00:05:40Z

CTerry: /* Class / Type / Dimensions */

Before anyone asks, here is the source: http://pics.livejournal.com/drewcypher/pic/000pbh0a/g261 
See the seal in the background --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:59, 31 October 2006 (CST)
:Good Job Serenity!--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 18:38, 31 October 2006 (CST)
::I didn't create the article though :p --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:42, 31 October 2006 (CST)
:::Yeah, but you spotted the name on the seal. Well, whoever spotted it first, good job!--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 18:44, 31 October 2006 (CST)
::::Anyone else notice Tigh?--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 18:47, 31 October 2006 (CST)
:::::You mean the eye? This is probably flashback scene. -- [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:50, 31 October 2006 (CST)
::::::With Admiral pips?[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])18:52, 31 October 2006 (CST)
:::::::The description below says "'''Commander''' William Adama", as opposed to the next photo. -- [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:56, 31 October 2006 (CST)
::::::::The rank differences clearly IDs the photo spot as a flashback. Look at the pips on the collar! What are the left collar pips verses the rank pips on the right? (Right-Left relative to the wearer) This is especially noticable on the Admiral Corman shot. --[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 19:02, 31 October 2006 (CST)

It's most likely a flashback. Maybe Adama and Tigh served on the Valkyrie and that's where [[Bulldog]] was under Adama's command. I can't really make out the rank pins. They look a bigger than Commander's insignia, but the picture quality isn't that good --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:09, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Another question, in 8 of 9 shot on that webpage, I am guessing its a flashback scene because Lee is wearing Captain's pips, but he also has a Battlestar Galactica badge on his shoulder. I thought he wasn't assigned to the Galactica prior to the miniseries? Is that the implication here or a clothing manfunction? hehe...--[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 19:26, 31 October 2006 (CST)
:I read something that he might be demoted back to Captain. Not sure about it, but it makes sense. I guess they could keep him as Major or even Colonel, but there isn't really a job opening for a Commander at the moment.
:But looking at it more closely that might even be Major. Major and Captain look very similar, with Major having three chevron, the top one of which is directly on the diamond's edge --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:28, 31 October 2006 (CST)
::The original [[Jackson Spencer|CAG]] of Galactica that we see was a Major. Also, in the Miniseries, Apollo didn't wear a unit patch at all on his shoulder when he got to Galactica, pehaps since he was in the Reserves. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:21, 3 November 2006 (EST)
::In "[[Torn]]", the name plate on Lee's viper reads "Maj. Lee Adama". So I don't think he will be demoted any time soon. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:54, 10 November 2006 (CST)
I've deleted this line "both William Adama and Saul Tigh served on the Valkyrie" this is not canon, also many rumors going around are that Adama was involved in a covert operations against the cylons so he might have simply gone to the Valkyrie to be issued orders or debriefed etc, point is, we don't know. --[[user:lordmutt|lordmutt]] 19:13, 10 November 2006 (EST)
:There is a two-minute video out there, that pretty much confirms that Adama and Tigh were sent to ''Valkyrie'' for a special mission. Something about using a stealth ship to make a reconnaissance flight into Cylon space. The ship was flown by Novacek who was then captured by the Cylons. I also like that this shoots down the silly theories that the Blackbird was the Colonial's first stealth ship. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:52, 10 November 2006 (CST)
:: Concur. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:55, 10 November 2006 (CST)

== Class / Type / Dimensions ==
Now, for the time being, does ''Valkyrie'' go down as a ''Valkyrie''-type Battlestar (until someone at the "Head Office" finally tells us details like this)? I '''''especially''''' like how ''Galactica'', ''Pegasus'', and now ''Valkyrie'' are all different styles and sizes, but yet are still classified as ''battlestars''. This shows a degree of realism, creativity, and dynamicism among our intrepid Powers That Be — they're not going to pull the weak, canned trick of reusing the same model over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Also, ''hopefully'', it stomps on ''any'' musings amongst certain overzealous fans of such genres as Star Wars and Star Trek who have this bad habit of immediately speculating and squabbling over if a ship is a battleship, destroyer, frigate, etc. In this case, it would seem that, regardless of size and/or layout, a battlestar is a battlestar is a battlestar. End of line.

On that note, it would appear that ''Valkyrie'' is infact smaller than ''Galactica'', perhaps with reduced capabilities (weapons and embarked Vipers and Raptors quantities, etc.), less crew. It would also appear that she has less engines in her differently shaped array, which would make sense for a smaller, less massive starship.

Lastly, and unrelated to ''Valkyrie'' directly, that stealth recon craft was ''badass'', wasn't it? -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 23:49, 17 November 2006 (CST)

I'm not so sure that the Valkyrie is a less capable ship than the Galactica. From what Tigh said about Adama's "graceful retirement' it seems that the Valkyrie was actually a pretty prestigious command. I had always thought that commanding the Galactica was a great honor, but Tigh's words seem to indicate otherwise. Ships tend to get smaller as the technology progresses because of the reduced manpower requirement. Perhaps the smaller size of the Valkyrie is an indication of this. Theres no real numbers for the dimensions of the Valkyrie or anything to scale it to, but I also got the sense that it was smaller than the Pegasus or Galactica. --[[User:Antagonist|Antagonist]] 02:16, 18 November 2006 (CST)

:I disagree with that. A smaller ship is going to have less physical space to carry fighter craft and supplies. If ''Valkyrie'' is smaller than ''Galactica'' and ''Pegasus'', then its gun batteries are smaller, which means they're firing lighter shells, which translates into less penetration, smaller warheads, less damage. A smaller ship has less volume to absorb damage with, meaning less staying power in a battle.
:That doesn't mean it can't still be a prestigious command, though. If it were a very new ship, even if it weren't the most powerful, it would still be a plum assignment.--[[User:Grin Reaper|Grin Reaper]] 07:08, 18 November 2006 (CST)
::That's not always completely true. For example, the modern Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer is about 500 feet long. It's replaced the 560 foot long Spruance and Kidd class destroyers and is also much more powerful than the old Long Beach (721 fl) and other old cruisers. It's almost as powerful as the other current surface warship, the Ticonderoga class cruiser, built on a Spruance hull. The only reason our modern carriers are so much larger than the old WWII bird farms, is that the planes are much larger now than they were back then. For instance, the lightweight F/A-18E Super Hornet is about 30,000lbs empty and 60 feet long. The old F6F Hellcat is 42 feet long and weighs under 10,000lbs. In conclusion, Valkryie, even smaller, could be much more powerful than the older Galactica. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 09:09, 18 November 2006 (CST)
:::But considering the timeframe, they aren't using radically different weapons and planes. Probably standard Mk VII Vipers or maybe MkVIs or whatever.
:::I think it's sort of like the escort carriers of WWII. Not usually meant to operate alone, but to give support to larger carriers, protect ships and support planetary operations. A support ship in Battlestar Groups that have a fullsized battlestar as main ship --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:24, 18 November 2006 (CST)
::::That reminds me of a point I forgot, the Mk II and Mk VII are of similar sizes, they can be launched from the same tubes and stored in the same parking spots on the hanger deck. I'm thinking the Valkyrie is like the USS Wasp which was a miniture Yorktown, a small light carrier that can operate with the fleet carriers. The only difference is that the Valkryie would be more advanced than Galactica, instead of old and ineffective like the Wasp. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 09:38, 18 November 2006 (CST)
::I find myself nodding in gleeful agreement to [[User:Talos|Talos]] and [[User:Serenity|Serenity's]] comments, but I must reply to [[User:Grin Reaper|Grin Reaper's]] first — you're using the "bigger is better" mentality, and this is one of the two issues that burns at the heart of the fight amongst Star Wars fans on the topic of warships (and classification thereof, but I'll mention that later). Bigger ''is not'' better. Better is better. Different is better. Just because ''Valkyrie'' is smaller (hypothetically speaking for the sake of example) doesn't mean she carries smaller weapons. From the recollection scenes alone, we can see that she has weaponry different, and in different locations, than ''Galactica''. The elder battlestar lumps her primary "turrets" dorsalside and ventralside, and has her "flak-guns" lining the midline and flight pods. ''Valkyrie'', by contrast, had turrets on the pods themselves, akin to ''Pegasus''. I don't want to chase specifics, but focus on the point that differences are ''good'' — they're human; they're to be expected; they're in realistic keeping.
::It could be said that, perhaps, ''Valkyrie'' was as Talos and Serenity say, a lighter, more purposeful version of a battlestar for an accompaniment or specialized role. Less mass would mean that she'd require less engines in her array, and perhaps have greater velocities/accelerations. She'd require less crew. While still operating the same craft as any other battlestar, she ''might'' have less of them. Who knows? The point is, she's different, but ''still a battlestar''.
::I bring in two examples from history: the case of the HMS ''Hood'' (ca. 1940) and the battleships of the US Navy during WWII. In ''Hood's'' story, she was, when WWII rolled around, the largest, longest warship in the British Navy, and was 262m long at 48,000 tonnes full load. By contrast, the ''Queen Elizabeth''-class battleships were 197m at 33,000 tonnes. Both ships carried the same 15-in gun. Then, we throw in another WWII-era battleship, the ''King George V''-class, which was 227m at 42,000 tonnes — but sported 14-in guns because the Admiralty, at the time, felt that a more quantitive broadside (10 over 8 or 9) would be more effective than the larger 15-in guns. I'm not going to get into a running argument over details, but bring this up to point out that all three were battleships (''Hood'' was termed a ''battlecruiser'', but the point stands), built by the ''same country'' in roughly a short period of time (within approximately 30 years), and all were used under similar circumstances, to varying success and failure. Similarly, the United States had their "holdover" dreadnaught-style battleships at the opening of WWII, but then churned out the ''New Mexico''-class, the ''South Dakota''-class, ''North Carolina''-class, and ''Iowa''-class. Each was indeed a battleship, but definitely different in terms of size, traits, and capabilities.
::Yes, I may be getting a bit long-winded for such a trivial subject, but I can't express enough how ''different'' this great series is from Star Trek and Star Wars. Until proven otherwise, there aren't any carriers, battleships, cruisers, frigates, destroyers, corvettes, torpedo boats, etc. — there are ''battlestars'', and a battlestar is a battlestar is a battlestar, albeit in different shapes, forms, and sizes. -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 11:26, 18 November 2006 (CST)
:::I'm thinking that it's just a smaller battlestar, fulfilling a similar role as the Mercuries and such on smaller displacement. Many realword navies are always attempting to do this. For example, before the Burke was finalized, various lightweight versions, sacrificing engines or Aegis, or other equipment, were designed. All of them tried to mimize displacement.The Treaty-era ships from the 1920-30's aren't the best examples to use here because they had an artificial limit imposed on them by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Frequently, improved technology requires lesser manpower. The reason ships keep getting bigger historically is that they keep adding new technology, for instance, the cause of the massive destroyer size increase after WWII is mostly due to the inclusion of Weapon Alfa, guided missiles, and a huge increase in carried electronics. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 12:27, 18 November 2006 (CST)
::::OK, let's not make too big a deal about the size. Here's a comparison of sizes of post-WWII aircraft carrier classess that I put together from wikipedia.org organized by when they were built:
CVL-48 Saipan class - 2 ships
14,500 tons

CVA-58 United States class - 1 ship
83,350 tons full, 68,000 tons standard

CV-59 Forrestal class - 4 ships
56,300 tons

CV-63 Kitty Hawk class - 3 ships
60,000 tons, 82,200 tons full load

CVN-65 Enterprise class - 1 ship
approx. 93,500 tons full load

CV-67 John F. Kennedy class - 1 ship
60728 tons light, 82655 tons full

CVN-68 Nimitz class - 9 ships
101,000 to 104,000 tons full load

CVN-78 21st Century Aircraft Carrier Project
100,000 tons

If we equate Galactica, an older ship, to the USS United States and the Valkyrie to Forrestal Class and Pegasus to a Nimitz class, then Galactica would be clearly larger than the Valkyrie and Pegasus would clearly be much larger than both. In the US Navy today, all these carriers have the exact same function, but vary in size by design and time. However, they are all aircraft carriers. --[[User:Straycat0|Straycat0]] 17:29, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I think its also worth remembering that Galactica is 60 years old, and one of the first 12 Battlestars. Therefore Valkyrie must be a newer ship, which is suggested by some of its more Pegasusish design nods. Therefore yes it can quite easily be more powerful than Galactica, simply by having more modern technology. Yes Galactica will of been refitted and such and such, but refitting can only get you so far. If Galactica was able to hold its own next to newer ships it wouldn't of been about to be decommissioned when the series started. The fact is we don't know when Pegasus and Valkeryie were built, except that both most of been built post-Galactica's. That's probably also why Galactica is looked upon so harshly by Tigh. Galactica may of been in the fleet as an old relic. An old rust bucket that should of been decommissioned years ago. --[[User:CTerry|CTerry]] 18:05, 18 November 2006 (CST)

== Number / Designation? ==
Am I seeing this right? From the capture, it looks like '''BSG 41''' on the seal. -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 11:47, 18 November 2006 (CST)

Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Number Seven

Talk:Valkyrie/Archive 1