Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Razor/Archive2

2007-11-16T02:48:26Z

Tomglima:

We'll need to retitle this article when we get a proper title that's not ambigous as "Battlestar Galactica (DVD movie)". The article will also need to become an episode summary as well. Maybe it may be better to rename this as "Battlestar Galactica (2007 DVD movie)" to avoid confusion with the [[Miniseries]] and other DVD releases. -- [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:02, 17 April 2007 (CDT) ([[User_Talk:Spencerian|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Spencerian|Contribs]] - [[Special:Editcount/Spencerian|WonderNumbers]])

:I brought it in line with the standard episode guide format for now. Adding the year number is a good idea for now, but later we'll probably have a real name --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:06, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
::I agree. Battlestar Galactica (2007 DVD movie) would be good if we don't get an official title. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
:::Right. I'll rename it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:56, 17 April 2007 (CDT)([[User_Talk:Spencerian|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Spencerian|Contribs]] - [[Special:Editcount/Spencerian|WonderNumbers]])

== Numbering and prev/next ==
How are we gonna number this one? [[4.00]] currently redirects here, but if that's the number we're going with, it should be [[400]] (in line with [[101]] through [[320]]). Or are we gonna pull another webisode and not number it at all? Also, the webisodes are missing from the episode guides' Prev/Next sequence. Is this one gonna be included? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
:400 is possible. But do we need to determine that right now? We could as well wait until some information about it is known. Agree though, that the webisodes should be in the sequence. I'll see to that... --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:11, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
::We can wait, just wanted to point out we'll want a number at some point. Thanks for the sequence thingy, I could've fixed it myself but wondered whether they were left out intentionally (because there's no critical story in them, apart from Nora's death which is recapped in [[Occupation]]).--[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:33, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Since Joe made 4.01 redirect here, the episode data needs to be changed to 4.01 too. And the rest of the episodes after it, to off course (well, one for now). For what it's worth the casting sides (see below), call it 4.01 and 4.02. That's probably correct, since it's TWO episodes that belong together - possibly shown as one movie. So "He That Believeth In Me" would be 4.03 --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:04, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
: That's what I've figured, given what I've read thus far. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 16:10, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

== "Razor" ==

<s>I recently noticed [[Razor]] being created as a redirect to this page. Is "Razor" this movie's working title? Do we have a source for that?</s> [http://www.sidesexpress.com/se_index.cfm?locid=5&task=type&l=5&c=battlestar#sr Never mind]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 08:45, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

If the official name is Razor, though, this page should be renamed to "Razor". Could someone on Sci Fi Forums (or somewhere else) ask for confirmation on the Razor and HTBIM titles? I've asked on [[BW:OC]], but that page isn't viewed very much. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 11:09, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

:Well, the [http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41709&type=0 press release confirming the last season] drops the "Razor" title. Can we construe this as confirmation, or at least enough to justify a move? --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 14:10, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

::Given that there remains no official title, the working title redirect is just fine for the wiki's needs, and keeps it more searchable that our title here. It is not likely we'll get an official title (like the episodes) until they are officially announced. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:45, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

:::Does Sci-FI Wire not count as an official source? I would think a press release from the network would be official enough to warrant the article's name change. [[User:Alpha5099|Alpha5099]] 16:27, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

::::It's the ''writers'' that ultimately choose the name. The episode "[[Home]]" became a two-parter at the last minute. Season 3 had a sudden change for its very first episodes. Sci Fi's own "official web site" lists ship information with numerous errors. Heck, the press release for the series end was filled with heinous errors. It is best to wait and not jump ahead. Again....we already have a redirect for any searches on the term of "Razor", so we're covered. We reverse the redirect once we see the name on the TV schedule. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:16, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

According to [[http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070608j.php this]] Ron Moore confirmed the title at the LA Q&A event. It's second hand, but straight from the head honcho. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:51, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

: Since RDM confirmed it, it's good, until it gets changed. Remember episode titles can change right up until the episode airs. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:47, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sequence numbers ==

[http://www.sidesexpress.com/se_index.cfm?locid=5&task=type&l=5&c=battlestar&p=1#sr This source] cites 401 and 402 as the sequence numbers for "Razor", and 403 for "[[He That Believath In Me]]". Are we gonna follow this scheme? Ask Brad? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:11, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
:We could just hold off on episode numbers until something definite is known. For know we can just use episode names, and add the numbers later. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:22, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
::Obviously, since this is the last season, we don't need any official numbering policy and can continue to implement episode numbering on an ad-hoc basis. The trouble is where official resources disagree (the third season podcasts were consistantly numbered as if "Occupation/Precipice" were two episodes, while on said podcasts, RDM consistantly referred to them as if "Occupation/Precipice" were a single episode). My personal opinion is that it makes the most sense to label each hour of the season with its own production code, and to give mid-season ancillary material such as "The Resistance" and "Razor" the X.00 designation. That being said, we should obviously defer to the production staff ''if they follow a consistant practice''. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:49, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
:::I agree. Let's wait for the Season 4 podcasts to hear what number RDM gives them. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:30, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

== Casting sheets (SPOILERS!) ==

Get [http://rapidshare.com/files/30443459/Kendra_7pgs.pdf.html this] and [http://rapidshare.com/files/30443433/Young_Adama_4pgs.pdf.html this]

1.) Flashbacks to the Cylon attack from ''Pegasus'''s point of view. It counterpoints Adama by showing how Cain reacted to the news. The new character, Kendra Shaw, is shellshocked at first, but quickly pulls herself together. Scenes showing the destroyed Colonial Fleet.

After ''Pegasus'' joins the Fleet, Lee Adama finds himself reviewing herself. Similar to Starbuck she has some discipline problems and got busted by Fisk and Garner. Since he doesn't give a damn about those two and needs someone from ''Pegasus'' to work with him, he promoted her to be his XO.

2.) Flashback to the first Cylon War with a young William Adama flying a Viper sortie. Helena Cain is a child and living through an attack on her home colony of Tauron. The battlestar ''Columbia'' is destroyed (this must be the predecessor of the one destroyed in the second war). In the course of the fight Adama is shot down on some planet and somehow finds a lab where the Cylons experimented on humans. He sees on the of new basestars. This is directly before the Armistice, which is declared before he can do something about it.

All very interesting, but hard to source. And still subject to change. It tracks with everything else known though.

Also according to IMDB [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1089338/ this] is the actress to play Kendra Shaw. And I know that this isn't entirely reliable. Looks hot though :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:21, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
:The trailer preview that aired yesterday confirms that this is, indeed, the actress, or at least someone who looks A LOT like her. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 17:53, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

== Director ==

Where has it been cited that Félix Enríquez Alcalá is going to direct? There's no mention of this within the body of the article. Keep in mind that I haven't listened to the audiofile, and the two ''TV Week'' links appear to be dead. --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 12:59, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

== SciFy Portal ==

http://www.syfyportal.com/news423777.html

According to this Cain and Gina were lovers. In her childhood Cain's family were attacked by Cylons (which fits perfectly with the script excerpt above) and she had to make a decision to save herself or her sister. And the TOS Centurions will be seen extensively in full CGI glory.

The article says that the source is anonymous though. Still, it sounds very plausible. Include or not? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:34, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

== Minisodes/Webisodes ==

How do we deal with those webisodes that will air in October? We have an own article for "The Resistance", but since the "Razor" ones are basically cut material that will be included in the DVD version, we might want to put them into the normal "Razor" article. When they air we can have a separate section, and later include them into the summary (once the DVD is out). They could be marked with a '*' for example to note their webisode status. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:19, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
: That seems a sensible approach. Also, we may want to create [[Razor webisodes]] (and articles of the same caliber) as a redirect to the "Razor" article, so as to avoid creating repetitious content. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 17:21, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

== Shaw's patch ==

I'm sure some of us noticed this already, but the patch is a orange yellow color. I wonder if she's a survivor from another battlestar or ship entirely. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:16, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
:Yeah, it seems that she comes from another ship or ground installation. There is a scene in one of the trailers where Gina welcomes her aboard. And the first trailer shows her stepping off a Raptor carrying luggage. Somehow, I get the feeling that that doesn't happen after the attack. Maybe she's from the shipyards and supposed to do some work. The article also identified Gina as systems analyst by the way. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:32, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
::I remember that, so it wouldn't be surprising if she's from another ship or installation. On Gina, I'm also interested in the patch on Gina's uniform as well. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:45, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
:::Yeah, but from the low-res shots you can't see anything. There are surely high-res versions for the press, but you know that NBC cracked down on those, so the fan sites probably won't show them. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 19:00, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
::::There being more stealthy about it now. Of course, I tried to get to bsgmedia.org and, surprise, the whole site was taken down. Coincidentally, I've sent off a query to BSGMedia.org's domain owner to see what's up with the site. Hopefully, someone will have the higher res versions somewhere at least... sigh... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 19:45, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
:::::Fanwankery, but perhaps she is from the Scorpion Shipyards? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:55, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
::::::Why would such a young and high-ranking officer be stationed on shipyards? And why would it be necessary for her to sleep aboard Pegasus just because some systems are overhauled? --[[User:Pedda|Pedda]] 07:00, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
:::::::She isn't high-ranking. At that time she's just a lieutenant. And what does age and rank possibly have to do with where one is stationed? You are right about the sleeping part, so maybe she gets re-assigned and still has her old uniform. We'll see... --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:14, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
::::::::I just checked the article on the SFS and realized that the structure/purpose is more military and less civilian than I thought. Sorry. -- [[User:Pedda|Pedda]] 15:11, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Additionally, I tried to get on bsgmedia.org... but the site seems to have been taken down. Or is simply unavailable. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 18:19, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I just visited bsgmedia.org ... it may have been down, but it seems to be back up --[[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 01:00, 3 October 2007 (CDT)
: Yeah, but they no longer have the promotional pictures. They've been taken down apparently. All that's left are some low-quality screencaps. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 01:09, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

[http://www.bsg.cz/galerie/promos/401.2/hi_ep401-2_014.jpg High res picture].
It says "Ministry of Defense" and "...bol HQ". And [http://www.bsg.cz/galerie/promos/401.2/hi_ep401-2_011.jpg here] you see that the whole thing says "Kobol HQ". Weird. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:07, 6 October 2007 (CDT)

==Plot thickens for the UK airdate==
Dear Matt

Thank you for your email regarding Battlestar Galactica.

I can confirm that we do not have the screening rights to the movie 'Razor' however, I can confirm that Sky One has acquired the rights to season 4 of Battlestar Galactica however our license date is not until after 31/12/07.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us at Sky.

Kind regards

<removed>
Viewer Relations

Mmm so it would seem that the rumors might be holding true that Virgin1 snagged the rights to the Razor telemovie. Luckily Virgin1 is available on Sky so BSG fans arent going to lose out. Seems crazy for Virgin Media to pay for the rights to Razor as its basicly going to be free advertising for Sky viewers though. dvd.co.uk still reports it as airing on the 5th december too. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:57, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
:What channel (on Sky) is Vigin 1 on? I haven't noticed it when I've been flicking through :-(. I'm stuck as to whether I should wait for the DVD release personally, it will probably be a much more enjoyable experience watching it uncut. [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 13:15, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
::The extended version will be better and will include the flashback scenes showing in thge US atm. Its still speculation that razor might be on virgin, I have not recieved a reply from them about it. Its on Sky 153 btw --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 07:00, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

==Advanced screenings==

http://www.battlestarevent.com

Specially-selected cities will be showing Razor on the big screen 12 days early(November 12th). Registration begins today.--[[User:Veepz|Veepz]] 16:03, 26 October 2007 (CDT)
: They have a promo video on scifi.com [http://video.scifi.com/player/?id=171267 here]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 23:12, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

== Razor content ==

With the spoiler policy and all that, is it OK to:
* add a summary for [[Razor]];
* create [[Battle of the Communications Relay]];
* create [[Guardians]];
* add information about the first hybrid to [[Hybrid]]?
Or do we want to stay away from littering the wiki with Razor spoilers until after the airing? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 14:37, 4 November 2007 (CST)
: Adding the content is fine, as so long as we put the appropriate spoiler tags in place. From what I'm reading so far from the bulletin boards and the like, it seems like the screener is spreading like wildfire. (Hopefully this doesn't harm any sales, since this would definitely kill any future releases.)
: As for the main Razor page, I was thinking that it would be best to do a subpage with the actual guide for now. Therefore I was thinking of something like [[Razor/Guide]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 14:43, 4 November 2007 (CST)

:There are warnings about spoilers in place, but I'd prefer to wait until the official airing for massive edits, which is why I only added/changed some general things so far. Doing the battle page would be ok, since that can easily be avoided.
:I don't think we need a page for the Guardians though. A subsection on the Centurion page would suffice IMO. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:46, 4 November 2007 (CST)
:: True, that's my preference as well, but realistically I think we should just go ahead and make subpages for the pages that need massive changes and do the "Razor" filled content there. Once that's done, we can roll everything into the main pages once "Razor" is aired. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 14:53, 4 November 2007 (CST)
:::That might cause some duplication, but is probably be the best idea. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:54, 4 November 2007 (CST)
::::Where entire sections are concerned (such as "The Harbinger of the Apocalypse" in [[The Destiny]], "The Guardians" in [[Cylon Centurion Model 0005]] and the summary in [[Razor]]), subpages are probably the best course of action. Smaller additions (such as [[Lee Adama]], [[Scylla]]) could be done the {{tl|spoilli}} way. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 15:05, 4 November 2007 (CST)

== Sharon ==

Could anyone tell whether or not Sharon was still pregnant in the scenes aboard ''Pegasus'' during "Razor"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 10:59, 6 November 2007 (CST)
:Her belly can't actually be seen as far as I can tell. Cunning :) --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:06, 6 November 2007 (CST)
::Yes, it was well conceived shooting, in my view. I'd like to think it happened before "Downloaded", seeing as Sharon would probably refuse to help. Although, on the other hand, she didn't seem to happy to be there. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 11:23, 6 November 2007 (CST)

== Canadian airdate ==

The Canadian airdate has been confirmed as November 24th [http://www.spacecast.com/tvschedule.aspx?date=11-24-2007 (source)], but I'm not sure where to put the information. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 01:41, 15 November 2007 (CST)

==Questions==
Why is the question: "Does Dualla take over as XO of Pegasus (Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II), because Kendra Shaw settles on New Caprica?" appear in this article when it is answered in this episode?

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2007-10-24T01:11:40Z

Tomglima:

:: Archive from [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Talk:Galactica_type_battlestar&oldid=47676 April 17, 2006]
== Medical Capabilites of a Battlestar ==

Peter,

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.

http://www.mfp.usmc.mil/TeamApp/G4/Topics/20040916154046/Med%20Cont%20Factbook.pdf

www.iiimef.usmc.mil/medical/ FMF/FMFE/FMFEref/fs_man/CHAPTER%2014.html

--[[User:Killerman|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|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)|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". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

:::I guess you can object to that too, if you want. I was trying to compromise. --[[User:Peter Farago|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. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:51, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Peter,

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.--[[User:Killerman|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|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. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:57, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

::::Oh yes yes, something new and revised. Yes. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 01:24, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

== Manufacture vs. Assembly of Ammunition ==
The "assembly" activities that take place in [[Epiphanies]] would fall into the realm of "production", depending on how you look at it. It seemed like they were loading the casings (I thought RDM said they were going to use caseless ammo) with powder, seating the primer and inserting the bullet, turning the various components into a cartridge. Whether or not they produced the individual components (metal for bullets and casings would be easy, compounds for primers and powder probably harder to obtain), the act of putting those bits together would often be considered "manufacturing" ammunition. Not a big deal, and I didn't even change the text (since it's pretty debatable). An example of this use of the word is in this [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4044-2004Jul21_2.html Washington Post Article]:

"''Israeli Military Industries said the ammunition will be manufactured in Israel but the raw materials, including propellants, projectiles and primers, come from U.S. sources.''
"

Once again, not trying to start a war, just wanted to weigh in on a subject I knew a little about (since they so rarely come up). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

== Picture of destroyed Galactica-type Battlestar ==
Though certainly a model of a Galactica-type was used for the shot, it's clearly mentioned at the very beginning of the miniseries that ''Galactica'' is the only ship of it's kind still in service. The story places the shot only hours after the beginning of the attack, so it should be impossible that another Galactica-type (museum or mothballed in a reserve-fleet) could be readied for battle. Shouldn't the destroyed battlestar be taken as one of a third class between the Galactica-Type and Mercury-class, still looking a lot like the Galactica-type? [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 13:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:That was my impulse. Story logic dictates that the destroyed hulk probably wasn't a Galactica type, but in the real world we can surmise that Zoic probably re-used the Galactica model. Of course, from that distance, we could fudge our interpretation either way. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:50, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::They don't necessarily mean that there are no Galactica type battlestars in service besides the Big-G, it could be taken to mean none like Galactica, eg. non-refitted, no networks, etc. The battlestar there could easily (and belivably) be a refitted Galactica type. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:22, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::I concur with Talos, and that has been my understanding. Besides, unless the ship was simply overwhelmed by Cylon military brawn, an old-Cylon War battlestar would put up the same level of fight as ''Galactica'' would have. Else, it was just as vulnerable as the new battlestars. I agree, cinematically, that that Galactica model was just reused.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:59, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::[http://www.skyone.co.uk/programme/pgefeature.aspx?pid=3&fid=642 Something to ask] the big man himself? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 14:34, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I'll do that in a little bit, I have to pick up my brother from his band practice in a minute. The life of a college student living at home... --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:36, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I really doubt he's going to take the time to clarify such a niggling detail. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

It has always been my belief that Doral meant it was the only Galactica-type battlestar never refited. I always point to the ''U.S.S. Missouri'' (Mighty 'Mo) as an example of a ship with over 50 years of combat service that just kept getting refitted over time to the point that it was firing satellite-targeted cruise missiles at the end of its service. I think Galactica was just the only one that was never refitted. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:My point exactly. It's like the WWII era Essex class carriers. There were refits that were completly rebuilt but a few, essentially, originals survived until the early 1960s with the others serving thru Vietnam ([[Wikipedia:USS Oriskany (CVA-34)|USS Oriskany (CVA-34)]] for example). The [[Wikipedia:USS Lexington (CV-16)|USS Lexington (CV-16)]] was in service as a training ship until 1991! --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 16:26, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

::It's exactly the ''USS Missouri''-example why I believe that ''Galactica'' is the last of it's class: All four ''Iowa''-Class battleships were updated and they all were finally decommissoned (for now) between 1990 and 1992. If the ''Galactica'' is simply the only one not refitted one would have to ask why that wasn't done. Why would one refit three ''Iowas'' but not the last one? This usually only happens if a ship is somehow different from her sisters (e.g. having sustained heavy battledamage the refit is more expensive and not worth the effort). Also it could be that the fleet is being downsized, no longer needing all ships. An example for this would be the British [[Wikipedia:Illustrious class aircraft carrier|''Illustrious''-Class]] of World War II. Of these three carriers only one received an angled flight-deck, surviving the scrapping of the other two for twenty years. But in all these cases I find it hard to believe that anyone would describe one of the ships decommissioned first as ''the last of it's kind still in service'' if there others (refitted or not) still in action. Which ''Iowa'' would have been described that way prior to it's decommissioning: ''Iowa'' in 1990 or ''Missouri'' in 1992? Wasn't ''Lexington'' the last ''Essex''?
::What Doral says before and after that statement makes it quite clear that he's not talking about a certain detail (like ''last of it's kind without a network'' would have been). He starts with ''worldfamous Battlestar Galactica'', then ''last of her kind still in service'' followed by ''constructed 50 years ago as one of the first twelve battlestars, representing Caprica''. The only possible explanation for other Galactica-types this leaves would be ''Galactica'' being the last of the first twelve, with other Galactica-types coming from a second batch no longer representing specific colonys. But even then "last of her kind" is an usual choice of words to describe that. [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 17:13, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Well said. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:04, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I think it is still ambiguous, and we should wait for an RDM blog reply before changing anything. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:54, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::I doubt RDM will respond to this issue, and I think the safest course of action would just be to remove it. There's sufficient reason to doubt that the hulk isn't a galactica-type that we shouldn't take a firm position on the issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:22, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
:::The motivation for no refit to ''Galactica'' could be nostaliga or historical preservation, explaining the odd wording; for such a purpose, only the unaltered version would count. ...Don't get the impression I believe that just because I said it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:56, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:Not to mention Adama, "It's a computer network and I'll be damned if I'll let it aboard my ship while I'm in command." (Paraphrased)--[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:01, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:We don't even know for sure if the destroyed battlestar was even in service. It could have been decommissioned earlier and be acting like a museum, just like Galactica was supposed to be. That would also explain its quick destruction. (It snapped cleanly in half). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 09:01, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::It could easily be in service still. In the Russian (and former Soviet) navy, there is a class of destroyers called the [[w:Udaloy class destroyer|Udaloy]]. The last of the class was heavily refitted and updated, bringing it up almost to Burke class levels. The important thing here is that there are still unrefitted ones in service (there was only enough money to upgrade one, the Admiral Chabenko). Then again, there is the Fletcher/Sumner class destroyers. The main differences were the gun armament (5x1 5" in Fletcher, 3x2 5" in Sumner), and the Sumner's twin rudders. Same hull and most of the superstructure. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:13, 13 January 2007 (CST)

== Crew numbers ==

How do we know a fully manned and equipped battlestar has a crew of 4,000 to 5,000? Was it said in some episode or where do these numbers come from? I'm updating the [[de:Kampfstern, Galactica-Typ|german battlestar article]] and I don't like to use data that seems to be made up out of thin air. The links and notes provided don't give any hint about the normal crew number of a battlestar of this type. We apologise for any inconvenience. -- [[User:Astfgl|Astfgl]] 16:03, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
:In the Miniseries, Tyrol says that there are over 2,000 people on Galactica. The ships seems very undermanned at the same time so I would think that 4-5,000 is a good estimate. I'm not sure if we've seen any concrete numbers though, maybe in the magazine. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 16:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

::Answer: in "Water" Baltar says how many civilians there are in the Fleet, and subtracting that from the total survivor population in that episode yielded the crew aboard Galactica as of "Water", at some number over 2,600 (I'd have to check). In several podcasts, Ron Moore keeps saying that while not on a skeleton crew, Galactica has about half the number of people on it that a fully crewed battlestar of its class would have. So, "between 4,000 and 5,000". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:38, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, I'll take these numbers then. -- [[User:Astfgl|Astfgl]] 07:37, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

== Flight tube counts ==
I see (in [[:Image:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg]], e.g.) 20 slots that seem like they might each be divided in half along the side of ''Galactica''. I can see why it is likely they are launch tubes, but I can also see many other similarly sized openings around them. Although it's a fine guess and quite likely to be true, I'm left hestitant that this evidence is sufficiently strong to be canon. In any case, if consensus is that this is canon, we should certainly footnote it, as the truth of the statement is not patently clear. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 00:10, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

== Delivery of Nuclear weapons ==

Since the Cylon forces repeatedly use missiles as an effective delivery platform for their nuclear weapons, isn't ir relativel safe to assume- since, of course, the Cylons were created by the Colonials- that the method deployed by Colonial forces is also missile-based? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 09:22, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
:It's a good idea, and I personally agree with it, but there is no aired proof, and thusly we cannot confirm how they do it. The two Galactica nukes we've seen thus far (Baltar's and the one Boomer uses to destroy the Basestar in Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II) have been removed from their delivery systems. (Although Boomer's did look like it was in a bomb casing). --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 09:31, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
::Fair point. Perhaps we'll get clarificaion in Season3, since Galactica herself still has three nuclear weapons aboard. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 10:06, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Well, we know now, good call on it being revealed in season 3, Although they haven't been used yet, I'm willing to bet they will be used in season 4 and we are going to have to update the articles again.--[[User:Tomglima|Tomglima]] 20:09, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
== Galactica-Class? ==

Please bear with me for a moment as I am citing a magazine many of you may consider illegitimate. In the September 2006 issue of Maxim Magazine, the "Fashion" section of Maxim Style features a photoshoot of the RDM Battlestar Galactica cast modeling various fashions. In one photograph, featuring James Callis and Tricia Helfer in a small corner alcove of the CIC (possibly weapons control or some other station), a center console features the text "GALACTICA-CLASS BATTLESTAR" in two places, easily readable to the viewer. I know it is general policy on television shows that whatever is aired in a given episode is canon, and what is not aired, non-canon. However, would this (i.e., "Galactica-class Battlestar") be considered canon since this console is occasionally seen in a given episode? Or am I just reading too much into a simple photoshoot? --[[User:Jonfucius|Jonfucius]] 09:30, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:Do you have a photograph of this? or a timestamp where we can check the DVD's? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::I assume he means [http://bsg-cz.net/news/files/images/season_3/maxim_5.jpg this] but on that pic I can't really see it on the prinouts on the table. It does indeed look like the weapon's control room, though I can't recall the table there. The room can be seen very rarely. In the miniseries for example --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I can barely make it out. Though it isn't canon, unless we saw it on the show itself, or if someone from the show were to tell us that "yes, indeed, ''Galactica'' is a ''Galactica''-class battlestar". Then it's canon. However, by all means, we can certainly put something in the notes section regarding this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:17, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::::That's definitely the weapons control section of CIC. If we can get a clearer shot, that will remove all doubt; it does look like "Galactica class" to me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:57, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Something for [[BW:OC]]? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 11:14, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::::::If I had access to a scanner I would provide a high-res image to examine; unfortunately, I am a relatively-poor college student (and how many aren't these days?) and the only scanner access I have is a public-use scanner in our bookstore. However, the image Mercifull provided is the one I indicated in my first post. In my copy of the issue, the text clearly reads "Galactica-class Battlestar". I know this is a minor detail among many in a show so richly layered by the writers and producers, but I wanted to make sure the Battlestar Wiki was as accurate as possible; I use the Wiki to enhance my experience of this incredible drama. Thank you all for your timely responses to my question. --[[User:Jonfucius|Jonfucius]] 11:39, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

== Actual class name? ==

I can purely speculate that the actual name of the original battlestar class (of which ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' is a member) is ''Onassis'', in honor of the wife of assassinated President [[Wikipedia:John F. Kennedy|John F. Kennedy]], [[Wikipedia:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis|Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis]]. So, ''Galactica'' is considered as an ''Onassis''-class battlestar. The prototype of its class, battlestar ''Onassis'' is destroyed in the renewed [[Cylons (RDM)|Cylon]] conflict. --[[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 21:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::LMAO at this troll.--[[User:Tomglima|Tomglima]] 20:11, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
:And there's ''nothing'' to back this up with? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 02:06, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:And how would Colonials know of the Kennedys? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
::Because they got information from Earth about these Kennedys before the Cylon Holocaust. Years before the [[Cylon War]], the battlestar prototype, ''Onassis'', is constructed, then ''Galactica'' itself. Therefore, we presume this original battlestar class (of which ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' is a member) is ''Onassis''. --[[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 04:20, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:I am ''very'' confused. There would have to be some serious cite for that change. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 05:10, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

I think that Starkiller is being absurd to prove a point, but, like others, I'm missing it. As per our convention, pure speculation is disallowed here without official sources to back it up. Since the picture of two BSG actors on an official set using props that match others with information cited as official and used here for articles (navigation charts) which indicates that ''Galactica'' is the first of her class, we should continue on this thread. Otherwise, Starkiller's comment is patent nonsense given that BSG is deliberately set so we don't know if the events occur in real-world Earth's past, present, or future. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:13, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:I've heard on several occasions that Galactica may be an "Atlantia-class" battlestar, but have found nothing to support this online. I've also heard that the original Galactica was a "Columbia-class". Is this true? If so, is it possible that the re-imagined Galactica is also a Columbia-class? I think this should head on over to [[BW:OC]]. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 11:46, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
::"Columbia-class" is common fan fiction. "Atlantia" class would make little sense: why would the fleet admiral use a old battlestar as his flagship? His ship would be Mercury class or something better (and more advanced--it was destroyed like the other [[CNP]] ships). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:34, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Then why does Adama choose Galactica as his flaghsip, and not Pegasus? There's nothing said on-screen to suggest that the Galactica-type battlestars were NOT re-fitted with computer networks. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Besides, the Atlantia mentioned in the mini could easily have been Mercury-class, and the original may have been retired like the Big G was. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 06:54, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Commanders don't have to choose the best and biggest ship as their flagship as long as they can do their duty from another one. Don't know who but some guy in WWII chose a destroyer or maybe a battleship as his command post and not an aircraft carrier. As long as there are options, there is some personal choice involved.
::::And you're right about networks. The Mini gives the distinct impression that it was only Adama's doing that the Galactica
::::wasn't more automated -[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:08, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Yeah, Admiral Raymond Spruance chose the cruiser USS Indianapolis as his flagship when he had multiple carriers at his disposal. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:11, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::As shown in events during the second half of season 2, Adama doesn't likely trust ''Pegasus'' crew. To quote Adama: "I tend to go with what you know, until something better comes along." So the decision is logical; he trusts ''Galactica'' and her crew, thus he plants his flag there. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:52, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::An corollary to Joe's comments: It is very likely that there is a long-standing (but fading) tradition to keep ''Galactica'' from being refitted, just as our USS Constitution was never refitted as a steamer, in keeping with her (supposed) significancy in Colonial war history. Besides, to ''revert'' any ship from new to old technology is just weird and very unlikely. There may have been fewer commanders willing to assume command of ''Galactica'' in this tradition, but Adama, a man who knew all too well of the problems of technology (and had served on her in the last part of the war), chose ''Galactica'' willingly, I figure. This is reinforced with the arrival of ''Pegasus''. He could've moved his new admiral flag there, but he hasn't. He prefers to go with what he knows until something better shows up. The old battlestar ''Galactica'', in Adama's mind, is still best. ''Pegasus'' survived more on luck than inherent design. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:30, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

==Role==

As with the Mercury-class article, I've amended the class role to [[Wikipedia:Battlecarrier|battlecarrier]]. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 15:37, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

:Madbrood, I can appreciate the use, but based on your link, I disagree. The term "battlestar" is a true carrier AND battleship in one, where the "battlecarrier" of our Earth is a rough amalgam that doesn't come close in size, fighter capacity, or firepower. Further, I wonder if we want to use complext Earth naval terms instead of what is given in the show to describe the ships using simple naval language. "Carrier/battleship" is less "smooth" than "battlecruiser", but is is also more accurate. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:44, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
::I agree. Battlecruiser is a nice term, but it really doesn't fit Galactica. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 08:35, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Fair enough. I just figured it sounded a bit more "military". --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 09:47, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

::::I know. I'd love to put up "big, frakkin' warship/carrier with guns, lots of guns," but "warship/carrier" may have to do. Keeping it simple. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:33, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

== Battlestar Redirect ==
Battlestar (RDM) currently redirects here. The only reason this concerned me was I was actually linking to a more generic use of the word ("Adama had been on an another battlestar before ''Galactica''). Back when "big G" was the only one we knew of, it defintely made sense. Now that we have "''Galactica'' type", "Mercury class", and "''Valkyrie'' type" I was wondering if maybe we needed a more generic article to sit at battlestar (RDM) describing the aircraft carrier/battleship capital ship concept in more general terms, with ''Galactica'', ''Pegasus'', and ''Valkyrie'' being specific examples. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:45, 4 December 2006 (CST)
:That sounds good to me, a general article explaing what battlestars are, listing known ones, mentioning BSGs, missions, etc. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:30, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::Rather than that, why not redirect to the central [[Battlestar]] disambiguation? It already has listed all battlestars by show and type, and avoids extra work. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:26, 4 December 2006 (CST)
:::'''That''' is exactly what I wanted to link to. I just automatically tagged an RDM on the end of it. I'll go change that link, but I agree that we should just change Battlestar (RDM) to point to Battlestar (work smarter not harder). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:57, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::::Hah, I'd forgotten about that page. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:23, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::::Done. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 21:40, 4 December 2006 (CST)

== Life Support ==

How exactly do Galactica's life support systems work? I know their recirculation units replenish oxygen and remove carbon dioxide, but does this oxygen come from tanks or is it recycled from somewhere? The ISS uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, so is is possible that Galactica-type ships do something similar to this?--[[User:Rapturous|Rapturous]] 13:52, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
: Other than the scrubbers, it's really never been explained. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 14:03, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
::Theoretically, they could have a big room full of plants somewhere in the ship. Plants 'breathe in' carbon dioxide and 'breathe out' oxygen, the opposite of what we do. However, you would need some kind of imitation sun then, because the chemical reaction I just described can only occur in sunlight. Other (artifical) means of converting CO2 back to oxygen could also be used (scrubbers?), but like the plants they will also require energy to work. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 06:57, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
:::Have you ever seen the film [[w:Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]] Catrope?
:::http://www.sunshinedna.com/wp-images/2005/09/2109_06a.jpg
:::They used an oxygen garden in that to produce the breathable air :D --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 07:37, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
::::Yep, I have. Spoilers for Sunshine follow: {{spoilli|In the scene where the ''Icarus II'' crew boards ''Icarus I'', you can see that her garden is still alive, because of the CO2 <-> O2 equilibrium between the plants and Captain Pinbacker who has lived there for seven years (having killed the rest of his crew).}} --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 07:58, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2007-10-24T01:09:45Z

Tomglima:

:: Archive from [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Talk:Galactica_type_battlestar&oldid=47676 April 17, 2006]
== Medical Capabilites of a Battlestar ==

Peter,

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.

http://www.mfp.usmc.mil/TeamApp/G4/Topics/20040916154046/Med%20Cont%20Factbook.pdf

www.iiimef.usmc.mil/medical/ FMF/FMFE/FMFEref/fs_man/CHAPTER%2014.html

--[[User:Killerman|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|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)|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". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

:::I guess you can object to that too, if you want. I was trying to compromise. --[[User:Peter Farago|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. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:51, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Peter,

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.--[[User:Killerman|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|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. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|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. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:57, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

::::Oh yes yes, something new and revised. Yes. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 01:24, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

== Manufacture vs. Assembly of Ammunition ==
The "assembly" activities that take place in [[Epiphanies]] would fall into the realm of "production", depending on how you look at it. It seemed like they were loading the casings (I thought RDM said they were going to use caseless ammo) with powder, seating the primer and inserting the bullet, turning the various components into a cartridge. Whether or not they produced the individual components (metal for bullets and casings would be easy, compounds for primers and powder probably harder to obtain), the act of putting those bits together would often be considered "manufacturing" ammunition. Not a big deal, and I didn't even change the text (since it's pretty debatable). An example of this use of the word is in this [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4044-2004Jul21_2.html Washington Post Article]:

"''Israeli Military Industries said the ammunition will be manufactured in Israel but the raw materials, including propellants, projectiles and primers, come from U.S. sources.''
"

Once again, not trying to start a war, just wanted to weigh in on a subject I knew a little about (since they so rarely come up). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:02, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

== Picture of destroyed Galactica-type Battlestar ==
Though certainly a model of a Galactica-type was used for the shot, it's clearly mentioned at the very beginning of the miniseries that ''Galactica'' is the only ship of it's kind still in service. The story places the shot only hours after the beginning of the attack, so it should be impossible that another Galactica-type (museum or mothballed in a reserve-fleet) could be readied for battle. Shouldn't the destroyed battlestar be taken as one of a third class between the Galactica-Type and Mercury-class, still looking a lot like the Galactica-type? [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 13:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:That was my impulse. Story logic dictates that the destroyed hulk probably wasn't a Galactica type, but in the real world we can surmise that Zoic probably re-used the Galactica model. Of course, from that distance, we could fudge our interpretation either way. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:50, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::They don't necessarily mean that there are no Galactica type battlestars in service besides the Big-G, it could be taken to mean none like Galactica, eg. non-refitted, no networks, etc. The battlestar there could easily (and belivably) be a refitted Galactica type. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:22, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::I concur with Talos, and that has been my understanding. Besides, unless the ship was simply overwhelmed by Cylon military brawn, an old-Cylon War battlestar would put up the same level of fight as ''Galactica'' would have. Else, it was just as vulnerable as the new battlestars. I agree, cinematically, that that Galactica model was just reused.--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:59, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::[http://www.skyone.co.uk/programme/pgefeature.aspx?pid=3&fid=642 Something to ask] the big man himself? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 14:34, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I'll do that in a little bit, I have to pick up my brother from his band practice in a minute. The life of a college student living at home... --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:36, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I really doubt he's going to take the time to clarify such a niggling detail. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:39, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

It has always been my belief that Doral meant it was the only Galactica-type battlestar never refited. I always point to the ''U.S.S. Missouri'' (Mighty 'Mo) as an example of a ship with over 50 years of combat service that just kept getting refitted over time to the point that it was firing satellite-targeted cruise missiles at the end of its service. I think Galactica was just the only one that was never refitted. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:My point exactly. It's like the WWII era Essex class carriers. There were refits that were completly rebuilt but a few, essentially, originals survived until the early 1960s with the others serving thru Vietnam ([[Wikipedia:USS Oriskany (CVA-34)|USS Oriskany (CVA-34)]] for example). The [[Wikipedia:USS Lexington (CV-16)|USS Lexington (CV-16)]] was in service as a training ship until 1991! --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 16:26, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

::It's exactly the ''USS Missouri''-example why I believe that ''Galactica'' is the last of it's class: All four ''Iowa''-Class battleships were updated and they all were finally decommissoned (for now) between 1990 and 1992. If the ''Galactica'' is simply the only one not refitted one would have to ask why that wasn't done. Why would one refit three ''Iowas'' but not the last one? This usually only happens if a ship is somehow different from her sisters (e.g. having sustained heavy battledamage the refit is more expensive and not worth the effort). Also it could be that the fleet is being downsized, no longer needing all ships. An example for this would be the British [[Wikipedia:Illustrious class aircraft carrier|''Illustrious''-Class]] of World War II. Of these three carriers only one received an angled flight-deck, surviving the scrapping of the other two for twenty years. But in all these cases I find it hard to believe that anyone would describe one of the ships decommissioned first as ''the last of it's kind still in service'' if there others (refitted or not) still in action. Which ''Iowa'' would have been described that way prior to it's decommissioning: ''Iowa'' in 1990 or ''Missouri'' in 1992? Wasn't ''Lexington'' the last ''Essex''?
::What Doral says before and after that statement makes it quite clear that he's not talking about a certain detail (like ''last of it's kind without a network'' would have been). He starts with ''worldfamous Battlestar Galactica'', then ''last of her kind still in service'' followed by ''constructed 50 years ago as one of the first twelve battlestars, representing Caprica''. The only possible explanation for other Galactica-types this leaves would be ''Galactica'' being the last of the first twelve, with other Galactica-types coming from a second batch no longer representing specific colonys. But even then "last of her kind" is an usual choice of words to describe that. [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 17:13, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Well said. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:04, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I think it is still ambiguous, and we should wait for an RDM blog reply before changing anything. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:54, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::I doubt RDM will respond to this issue, and I think the safest course of action would just be to remove it. There's sufficient reason to doubt that the hulk isn't a galactica-type that we shouldn't take a firm position on the issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:22, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
:::The motivation for no refit to ''Galactica'' could be nostaliga or historical preservation, explaining the odd wording; for such a purpose, only the unaltered version would count. ...Don't get the impression I believe that just because I said it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:56, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:Not to mention Adama, "It's a computer network and I'll be damned if I'll let it aboard my ship while I'm in command." (Paraphrased)--[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:01, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
:We don't even know for sure if the destroyed battlestar was even in service. It could have been decommissioned earlier and be acting like a museum, just like Galactica was supposed to be. That would also explain its quick destruction. (It snapped cleanly in half). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 09:01, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::It could easily be in service still. In the Russian (and former Soviet) navy, there is a class of destroyers called the [[w:Udaloy class destroyer|Udaloy]]. The last of the class was heavily refitted and updated, bringing it up almost to Burke class levels. The important thing here is that there are still unrefitted ones in service (there was only enough money to upgrade one, the Admiral Chabenko). Then again, there is the Fletcher/Sumner class destroyers. The main differences were the gun armament (5x1 5" in Fletcher, 3x2 5" in Sumner), and the Sumner's twin rudders. Same hull and most of the superstructure. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:13, 13 January 2007 (CST)

== Crew numbers ==

How do we know a fully manned and equipped battlestar has a crew of 4,000 to 5,000? Was it said in some episode or where do these numbers come from? I'm updating the [[de:Kampfstern, Galactica-Typ|german battlestar article]] and I don't like to use data that seems to be made up out of thin air. The links and notes provided don't give any hint about the normal crew number of a battlestar of this type. We apologise for any inconvenience. -- [[User:Astfgl|Astfgl]] 16:03, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
:In the Miniseries, Tyrol says that there are over 2,000 people on Galactica. The ships seems very undermanned at the same time so I would think that 4-5,000 is a good estimate. I'm not sure if we've seen any concrete numbers though, maybe in the magazine. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 16:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

::Answer: in "Water" Baltar says how many civilians there are in the Fleet, and subtracting that from the total survivor population in that episode yielded the crew aboard Galactica as of "Water", at some number over 2,600 (I'd have to check). In several podcasts, Ron Moore keeps saying that while not on a skeleton crew, Galactica has about half the number of people on it that a fully crewed battlestar of its class would have. So, "between 4,000 and 5,000". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:38, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, I'll take these numbers then. -- [[User:Astfgl|Astfgl]] 07:37, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

== Flight tube counts ==
I see (in [[:Image:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg]], e.g.) 20 slots that seem like they might each be divided in half along the side of ''Galactica''. I can see why it is likely they are launch tubes, but I can also see many other similarly sized openings around them. Although it's a fine guess and quite likely to be true, I'm left hestitant that this evidence is sufficiently strong to be canon. In any case, if consensus is that this is canon, we should certainly footnote it, as the truth of the statement is not patently clear. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 00:10, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

== Delivery of Nuclear weapons ==

Since the Cylon forces repeatedly use missiles as an effective delivery platform for their nuclear weapons, isn't ir relativel safe to assume- since, of course, the Cylons were created by the Colonials- that the method deployed by Colonial forces is also missile-based? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 09:22, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
:It's a good idea, and I personally agree with it, but there is no aired proof, and thusly we cannot confirm how they do it. The two Galactica nukes we've seen thus far (Baltar's and the one Boomer uses to destroy the Basestar in Kobol's Last Gleaming Part II) have been removed from their delivery systems. (Although Boomer's did look like it was in a bomb casing). --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 09:31, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
::Fair point. Perhaps we'll get clarificaion in Season3, since Galactica herself still has three nuclear weapons aboard. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 10:06, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Well, we know now, good call on it being revealed in season 3, Although they haven't been used yet, I'm willing to bet they will be used in season 4 and we are going to have to update the articles again.--[[User:Tomglima|Tomglima]] 20:09, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
== Galactica-Class? ==

Please bear with me for a moment as I am citing a magazine many of you may consider illegitimate. In the September 2006 issue of Maxim Magazine, the "Fashion" section of Maxim Style features a photoshoot of the RDM Battlestar Galactica cast modeling various fashions. In one photograph, featuring James Callis and Tricia Helfer in a small corner alcove of the CIC (possibly weapons control or some other station), a center console features the text "GALACTICA-CLASS BATTLESTAR" in two places, easily readable to the viewer. I know it is general policy on television shows that whatever is aired in a given episode is canon, and what is not aired, non-canon. However, would this (i.e., "Galactica-class Battlestar") be considered canon since this console is occasionally seen in a given episode? Or am I just reading too much into a simple photoshoot? --[[User:Jonfucius|Jonfucius]] 09:30, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:Do you have a photograph of this? or a timestamp where we can check the DVD's? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 09:55, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::I assume he means [http://bsg-cz.net/news/files/images/season_3/maxim_5.jpg this] but on that pic I can't really see it on the prinouts on the table. It does indeed look like the weapon's control room, though I can't recall the table there. The room can be seen very rarely. In the miniseries for example --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I can barely make it out. Though it isn't canon, unless we saw it on the show itself, or if someone from the show were to tell us that "yes, indeed, ''Galactica'' is a ''Galactica''-class battlestar". Then it's canon. However, by all means, we can certainly put something in the notes section regarding this. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:17, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::::That's definitely the weapons control section of CIC. If we can get a clearer shot, that will remove all doubt; it does look like "Galactica class" to me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:57, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Something for [[BW:OC]]? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 11:14, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
::::::If I had access to a scanner I would provide a high-res image to examine; unfortunately, I am a relatively-poor college student (and how many aren't these days?) and the only scanner access I have is a public-use scanner in our bookstore. However, the image Mercifull provided is the one I indicated in my first post. In my copy of the issue, the text clearly reads "Galactica-class Battlestar". I know this is a minor detail among many in a show so richly layered by the writers and producers, but I wanted to make sure the Battlestar Wiki was as accurate as possible; I use the Wiki to enhance my experience of this incredible drama. Thank you all for your timely responses to my question. --[[User:Jonfucius|Jonfucius]] 11:39, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

== Actual class name? ==

I can purely speculate that the actual name of the original battlestar class (of which ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' is a member) is ''Onassis'', in honor of the wife of assassinated President [[Wikipedia:John F. Kennedy|John F. Kennedy]], [[Wikipedia:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis|Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis]]. So, ''Galactica'' is considered as an ''Onassis''-class battlestar. The prototype of its class, battlestar ''Onassis'' is destroyed in the renewed [[Cylons (RDM)|Cylon]] conflict. --[[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 21:06, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
:And there's ''nothing'' to back this up with? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 02:06, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:And how would Colonials know of the Kennedys? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 02:29, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
::Because they got information from Earth about these Kennedys before the Cylon Holocaust. Years before the [[Cylon War]], the battlestar prototype, ''Onassis'', is constructed, then ''Galactica'' itself. Therefore, we presume this original battlestar class (of which ''[[Galactica (RDM)|Galactica]]'' is a member) is ''Onassis''. --[[User:Starkiller|Starkiller]] 04:20, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:I am ''very'' confused. There would have to be some serious cite for that change. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 05:10, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

I think that Starkiller is being absurd to prove a point, but, like others, I'm missing it. As per our convention, pure speculation is disallowed here without official sources to back it up. Since the picture of two BSG actors on an official set using props that match others with information cited as official and used here for articles (navigation charts) which indicates that ''Galactica'' is the first of her class, we should continue on this thread. Otherwise, Starkiller's comment is patent nonsense given that BSG is deliberately set so we don't know if the events occur in real-world Earth's past, present, or future. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:13, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:I've heard on several occasions that Galactica may be an "Atlantia-class" battlestar, but have found nothing to support this online. I've also heard that the original Galactica was a "Columbia-class". Is this true? If so, is it possible that the re-imagined Galactica is also a Columbia-class? I think this should head on over to [[BW:OC]]. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 11:46, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
::"Columbia-class" is common fan fiction. "Atlantia" class would make little sense: why would the fleet admiral use a old battlestar as his flagship? His ship would be Mercury class or something better (and more advanced--it was destroyed like the other [[CNP]] ships). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:34, 19 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Then why does Adama choose Galactica as his flaghsip, and not Pegasus? There's nothing said on-screen to suggest that the Galactica-type battlestars were NOT re-fitted with computer networks. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Besides, the Atlantia mentioned in the mini could easily have been Mercury-class, and the original may have been retired like the Big G was. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 06:54, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Commanders don't have to choose the best and biggest ship as their flagship as long as they can do their duty from another one. Don't know who but some guy in WWII chose a destroyer or maybe a battleship as his command post and not an aircraft carrier. As long as there are options, there is some personal choice involved.
::::And you're right about networks. The Mini gives the distinct impression that it was only Adama's doing that the Galactica
::::wasn't more automated -[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:08, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Yeah, Admiral Raymond Spruance chose the cruiser USS Indianapolis as his flagship when he had multiple carriers at his disposal. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 21:11, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::As shown in events during the second half of season 2, Adama doesn't likely trust ''Pegasus'' crew. To quote Adama: "I tend to go with what you know, until something better comes along." So the decision is logical; he trusts ''Galactica'' and her crew, thus he plants his flag there. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:52, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
::::An corollary to Joe's comments: It is very likely that there is a long-standing (but fading) tradition to keep ''Galactica'' from being refitted, just as our USS Constitution was never refitted as a steamer, in keeping with her (supposed) significancy in Colonial war history. Besides, to ''revert'' any ship from new to old technology is just weird and very unlikely. There may have been fewer commanders willing to assume command of ''Galactica'' in this tradition, but Adama, a man who knew all too well of the problems of technology (and had served on her in the last part of the war), chose ''Galactica'' willingly, I figure. This is reinforced with the arrival of ''Pegasus''. He could've moved his new admiral flag there, but he hasn't. He prefers to go with what he knows until something better shows up. The old battlestar ''Galactica'', in Adama's mind, is still best. ''Pegasus'' survived more on luck than inherent design. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:30, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

==Role==

As with the Mercury-class article, I've amended the class role to [[Wikipedia:Battlecarrier|battlecarrier]]. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 15:37, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

:Madbrood, I can appreciate the use, but based on your link, I disagree. The term "battlestar" is a true carrier AND battleship in one, where the "battlecarrier" of our Earth is a rough amalgam that doesn't come close in size, fighter capacity, or firepower. Further, I wonder if we want to use complext Earth naval terms instead of what is given in the show to describe the ships using simple naval language. "Carrier/battleship" is less "smooth" than "battlecruiser", but is is also more accurate. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:44, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
::I agree. Battlecruiser is a nice term, but it really doesn't fit Galactica. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 08:35, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Fair enough. I just figured it sounded a bit more "military". --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 09:47, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

::::I know. I'd love to put up "big, frakkin' warship/carrier with guns, lots of guns," but "warship/carrier" may have to do. Keeping it simple. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:33, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

== Battlestar Redirect ==
Battlestar (RDM) currently redirects here. The only reason this concerned me was I was actually linking to a more generic use of the word ("Adama had been on an another battlestar before ''Galactica''). Back when "big G" was the only one we knew of, it defintely made sense. Now that we have "''Galactica'' type", "Mercury class", and "''Valkyrie'' type" I was wondering if maybe we needed a more generic article to sit at battlestar (RDM) describing the aircraft carrier/battleship capital ship concept in more general terms, with ''Galactica'', ''Pegasus'', and ''Valkyrie'' being specific examples. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:45, 4 December 2006 (CST)
:That sounds good to me, a general article explaing what battlestars are, listing known ones, mentioning BSGs, missions, etc. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:30, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::Rather than that, why not redirect to the central [[Battlestar]] disambiguation? It already has listed all battlestars by show and type, and avoids extra work. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:26, 4 December 2006 (CST)
:::'''That''' is exactly what I wanted to link to. I just automatically tagged an RDM on the end of it. I'll go change that link, but I agree that we should just change Battlestar (RDM) to point to Battlestar (work smarter not harder). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:57, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::::Hah, I'd forgotten about that page. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:23, 4 December 2006 (CST)
::::Done. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 21:40, 4 December 2006 (CST)

== Life Support ==

How exactly do Galactica's life support systems work? I know their recirculation units replenish oxygen and remove carbon dioxide, but does this oxygen come from tanks or is it recycled from somewhere? The ISS uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, so is is possible that Galactica-type ships do something similar to this?--[[User:Rapturous|Rapturous]] 13:52, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
: Other than the scrubbers, it's really never been explained. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New''] 14:03, 10 October 2007 (CDT)
::Theoretically, they could have a big room full of plants somewhere in the ship. Plants 'breathe in' carbon dioxide and 'breathe out' oxygen, the opposite of what we do. However, you would need some kind of imitation sun then, because the chemical reaction I just described can only occur in sunlight. Other (artifical) means of converting CO2 back to oxygen could also be used (scrubbers?), but like the plants they will also require energy to work. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 06:57, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
:::Have you ever seen the film [[w:Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]] Catrope?
:::http://www.sunshinedna.com/wp-images/2005/09/2109_06a.jpg
:::They used an oxygen garden in that to produce the breathable air :D --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 07:37, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
::::Yep, I have. Spoilers for Sunshine follow: {{spoilli|In the scene where the ''Icarus II'' crew boards ''Icarus I'', you can see that her garden is still alive, because of the CO2 <-> O2 equilibrium between the plants and Captain Pinbacker who has lived there for seven years (having killed the rest of his crew).}} --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 07:58, 11 October 2007 (CDT)