Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2010-05-28T17:40:38Z

ViperMkII: /* Picture of destroyed Galactica-type Battlestar */

:: 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)
Also possible that the Galactica was origionally heavily armored like the Columbia but retrofitted. Then the other 1st war ships of its type were eventually decomissioned, whilst other Galactica Type Battlestars were made after the war without the extra armor (and other things we don't know about) to the new upgraded design of the Galactica type, therefore a different kind of ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What everyone here has failed to realize is that in BSG, the real life progression of technology that we experienced from WWII up to the present day does not exist; remember that the pre-war colonies were only superficially more advanced then the post war colonies. Based upon on screen information, it seems that the core of Colonial technology has not advanced by much from the time of the first Cylon war up to the attack on the colonies. The Galactica is not a WWII battleship/carrier running with analog systems. She seems to have very advanced computers, for example, a computer that can quickly compute something like a FTL jump has to be advanced, not to mention the computer/s that control the hundreds of point defense guns. Admiral Cain stated that a significant difference between the BSG and the Pegasus is the computer network and the automation that it controls. This in no way implies that Galactica's computers are inferior, just that they are not networked and as a result the ship requires more human coordination. There is also no evidence that the Galactica never received refits/replacement/upgrades of her original computer cores as well as here many other systems, of course there is no evidence to support the idea other than real-life navy practice. So one has to ask, is the Galactica really that out of date technology wise? I am of the opinion that the remark from the miniseries meant that Galactica was the last of the originals, still in the war-time configuration (meaning no networked automation). As for the destroyed Galactica type, it is not that unreasonable to assume that it is an early post-war ship, utilizing the same outer hull configuration but with updated internals such as increased network-controlled automation. I base this upon real-life ship design, looking at the list of modern destroyers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy]; when the navy finds a hull design that works they tend to stick with it, changing the internals with each subsequent class. Other examples are the F-18 hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet, as well as the Nimitz class carriers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier]. On the Nimitz page, read the section on the "Design differences within the class", particularly the ROCH part. Also read the "Future" section which states that the next class of carrier is "using an almost identical hull design". --[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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)
I hate to dredge up an old topic, but here's some food for thought that might support the theory that ''Galactica'' is the class name. Now, we're told that Galactica herself represented Caprica, the de facto capital of the colonies. Surely it stands to reason that the first battlestar built would be the one to represent the primary colony- Galactica. I know this is fanwanking, but I just thought of it and figured I'd voice my idea. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 12:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

== 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)
:::Perhaps tanks containing algae, submitted to given ranges of EM radiations? The idea of a garden is nice, but doesn't fit in the show, since no one ever walked in Galactica's garden. ;) That's why they needed Cloud 9. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Galactica class pic to rear its head again ==

I ran across [http://acedmagazine.com/images/stories/battlestargalactica/battlestargalactica23.jpg this picture], which shows the "Galactica class battlestar" sheet again. Thoughts? -- [[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''] 12:21, 25 November 2007 (CST)
:Shall we [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] whether this is official or just something the props department made up? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:Maybe put it on a more prominent place in the article, but explain that such props aren't necessarily official or reliable. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

== Main Battery Numbers ==
I have noticed that there is some confusion on the number of these guns. In examining the the picture of the ventral side, I have noticed 12 guns. 8 are marked, while 4 (two starboard and two port) are partially concealed by the bottom of the bow. They are roughly between the forward four guns and the first four midships guns. --[[User:Kregano|Kregano]] 19:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:There are twelve marked (8+4). With another 4, that would make the original number of 24 correct (16 ventral + 8 dorsal). That's why being so pedantic about trivial stuff like ship armament is kinda annoying. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:27, 14 January 2008 (CST)

== Why the flight pods must be retracted ==

When Galactica made the jump that broke her spine, her flight pods were still out. It would seem that jumping with the pods extended on this class of ship causes undue structural strain. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
: This was never the real reason for the strain. Having the flight pods extended doesn't cause strain... the jump itself caused strain, particularly after the stress from ramming the Colony and from the previous wear and tear Galactica experienced over the four years. Starting from the nuke impacting on Galactica in the Mini, the stress of continually jumping away from the Colonies, the "Adama Maneuver" at New Caprica, the various engagements with the Cylons throughout the series, going through the star cluster, etc., etc. Tigh said way back in Season Three that it would take weeks of Galactica in drydock just to knock out the dents... and he wasn't joking. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I know that. But jumping with the flight pods out (which has been thoroughly established to be a bad course of action for Galactica's class of battlestar) probably didn't help.
:::There are just too many circumstances that factored into ''Galactica'' breaking her back to make a clear argument for and against the flight pods being *the* main cause. Yes, in all the previous instances it has been said that ''Galactica'' couldn't (or couldn't afford) to jump with them extended. But Adama knew that this was her last mission, and just like Cain, coordinates or flight pods be damned, just jump or they're doomed just the same. BTW, the Raptors jumping inside the flight pod distrupted the structure, so it might very well have been impossible to retract at all.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
::::If you consider that a FTL drive might be calibrated to make jumps based on a given volume, or mass, themselves possibly relative to the center of gravity of the ship, the physics of the FTL drives might put greater strain onto the ship's superstructure if jumping without retracting the pods. One could think the retraction is necessary because of power requirements as well. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is so obvious that the retracted flight pods increase the lateral structural integrity of the ship. Why else would they retract into the hull so completely?--[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== Mass packets? ==

I've removed this from the article, since it wasn't specifically sourced, although the wording states that Adama specifically mentioned this in the miniseries. Either way, the note needs to be more clearly written and better sourced, definitely. Note follows:

*Unknown number of Mass Packet Launchers (Important Editors note: The mention of this weapons technology is clearly mentioned by Admiral [[William Adama]] during the miniseries but is never mentioned again after the galactica runs out of this ammunition).

-- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2010-05-27T14:41:46Z

ViperMkII: /* Why the flight pods must be retracted */

:: 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)
Also possible that the Galactica was origionally heavily armored like the Columbia but retrofitted. Then the other 1st war ships of its type were eventually decomissioned, whilst other Galactica Type Battlestars were made after the war without the extra armor (and other things we don't know about) to the new upgraded design of the Galactica type, therefore a different kind of ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What everyone here has failed to realize is that in BSG, the real life progression of technology that we experienced from WWII up to the present day does not exist; remember that the pre-war colonies were only superficially more advanced then the post war colonies. Based upon on screen information, it seems that the core of Colonial technology has not advanced by much from the time of the first Cylon war up to the attack on the colonies. The Galactica is not a WWII battleship/carrier running with analog systems. She seems to have very advanced computers, for example, a computer that can quickly compute something like a FTL jump has to be advanced, not to mention the computer/s that control the hundreds of point defense guns. Admiral Cain stated that a significant difference between the BSG and the Pegasus is the computer network and the automation that it controls. This in no way implies that Galactica's computers are inferior, just that they are not networked and as a result the ship requires more human coordination. There is also no evidence that the Galactica never received refits/replacement/upgrades of her original computer cores as well as here many other systems, of course there is no evidence to support the idea other than real-life navy practice. So one has to ask, is the Galactica really that out of date technology wise? I am of the opinion that the remark from the miniseries meant that Galactica was the last of the originals, still in the war-time configuration. As for the destroyed Galactica type, it is not that unreasonable to assume that it is an early post-war ship, utilizing the same outer hull configuration but with updated internals such as increased network-controlled automation. I base this upon real-life ship design, looking at the list of modern destroyers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy]; when the navy finds a hull design that works they tend to stick with it, changing the internals with each subsequent class. Other examples are the F-18 hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet, as well as the Nimitz class carriers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier]. On the Nimitz page, read the section on the "Design differences within the class", particularly the ROCH part. Also read the "Future" section which states that the next class of carrier is "using an almost identical hull design". --[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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)
I hate to dredge up an old topic, but here's some food for thought that might support the theory that ''Galactica'' is the class name. Now, we're told that Galactica herself represented Caprica, the de facto capital of the colonies. Surely it stands to reason that the first battlestar built would be the one to represent the primary colony- Galactica. I know this is fanwanking, but I just thought of it and figured I'd voice my idea. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 12:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

== 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)
:::Perhaps tanks containing algae, submitted to given ranges of EM radiations? The idea of a garden is nice, but doesn't fit in the show, since no one ever walked in Galactica's garden. ;) That's why they needed Cloud 9. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Galactica class pic to rear its head again ==

I ran across [http://acedmagazine.com/images/stories/battlestargalactica/battlestargalactica23.jpg this picture], which shows the "Galactica class battlestar" sheet again. Thoughts? -- [[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''] 12:21, 25 November 2007 (CST)
:Shall we [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] whether this is official or just something the props department made up? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:Maybe put it on a more prominent place in the article, but explain that such props aren't necessarily official or reliable. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

== Main Battery Numbers ==
I have noticed that there is some confusion on the number of these guns. In examining the the picture of the ventral side, I have noticed 12 guns. 8 are marked, while 4 (two starboard and two port) are partially concealed by the bottom of the bow. They are roughly between the forward four guns and the first four midships guns. --[[User:Kregano|Kregano]] 19:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:There are twelve marked (8+4). With another 4, that would make the original number of 24 correct (16 ventral + 8 dorsal). That's why being so pedantic about trivial stuff like ship armament is kinda annoying. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:27, 14 January 2008 (CST)

== Why the flight pods must be retracted ==

When Galactica made the jump that broke her spine, her flight pods were still out. It would seem that jumping with the pods extended on this class of ship causes undue structural strain. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
: This was never the real reason for the strain. Having the flight pods extended doesn't cause strain... the jump itself caused strain, particularly after the stress from ramming the Colony and from the previous wear and tear Galactica experienced over the four years. Starting from the nuke impacting on Galactica in the Mini, the stress of continually jumping away from the Colonies, the "Adama Maneuver" at New Caprica, the various engagements with the Cylons throughout the series, going through the star cluster, etc., etc. Tigh said way back in Season Three that it would take weeks of Galactica in drydock just to knock out the dents... and he wasn't joking. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I know that. But jumping with the flight pods out (which has been thoroughly established to be a bad course of action for Galactica's class of battlestar) probably didn't help.
:::There are just too many circumstances that factored into ''Galactica'' breaking her back to make a clear argument for and against the flight pods being *the* main cause. Yes, in all the previous instances it has been said that ''Galactica'' couldn't (or couldn't afford) to jump with them extended. But Adama knew that this was her last mission, and just like Cain, coordinates or flight pods be damned, just jump or they're doomed just the same. BTW, the Raptors jumping inside the flight pod distrupted the structure, so it might very well have been impossible to retract at all.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
::::If you consider that a FTL drive might be calibrated to make jumps based on a given volume, or mass, themselves possibly relative to the center of gravity of the ship, the physics of the FTL drives might put greater strain onto the ship's superstructure if jumping without retracting the pods. One could think the retraction is necessary because of power requirements as well. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is so obvious that the retracted flight pods increase the lateral structural integrity of the ship. Why else would they retract into the hull so completely?--[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== Mass packets? ==

I've removed this from the article, since it wasn't specifically sourced, although the wording states that Adama specifically mentioned this in the miniseries. Either way, the note needs to be more clearly written and better sourced, definitely. Note follows:

*Unknown number of Mass Packet Launchers (Important Editors note: The mention of this weapons technology is clearly mentioned by Admiral [[William Adama]] during the miniseries but is never mentioned again after the galactica runs out of this ammunition).

-- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2010-05-23T16:20:11Z

ViperMkII: /* Why the flight pods must be retracted */

:: 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)
Also possible that the Galactica was origionally heavily armored like the Columbia but retrofitted. Then the other 1st war ships of its type were eventually decomissioned, whilst other Galactica Type Battlestars were made after the war without the extra armor (and other things we don't know about) to the new upgraded design of the Galactica type, therefore a different kind of ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What everyone here has failed to realize is that in BSG, the real life progression of technology that we experienced from WWII up to the present day does not exist; remember that the pre-war colonies were only superficially more advanced then the post war colonies. Based upon on screen information, it seems that the core of Colonial technology has not advanced by much from the time of the first Cylon war up to the attack on the colonies. The Galactica is not a WWII battleship/carrier running with analog systems. She seems to have very advanced computers, for example, a computer that can quickly compute something like a FTL jump has to be advanced, not to mention the computer/s that control the hundreds of point defense guns. Admiral Cain stated that a significant difference between the BSG and the Pegasus is the computer network and the automation that it controls. This in no way implies that Galactica's computers are inferior, just that they are not networked and as a result the ship requires more human coordination. There is also no evidence that the Galactica never received refits/replacement/upgrades of her original computer cores as well as here many other systems, of course there is no evidence to support the idea other than real-life navy practice. So one has to ask, is the Galactica really that out of date technology wise? I am of the opinion that the remark from the miniseries meant that Galactica was the last of the originals, still in the war-time configuration. As for the destroyed Galactica type, it is not that unreasonable to assume that it is an early post-war ship, utilizing the same outer hull configuration but with updated internals such as increased network-controlled automation. I base this upon real-life ship design, looking at the list of modern destroyers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy]; when the navy finds a hull design that works they tend to stick with it, changing the internals with each subsequent class. Other examples are the F-18 hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet, as well as the Nimitz class carriers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier]. On the Nimitz page, read the section on the "Design differences within the class", particularly the ROCH part. Also read the "Future" section which states that the next class of carrier is "using an almost identical hull design". --[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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)
I hate to dredge up an old topic, but here's some food for thought that might support the theory that ''Galactica'' is the class name. Now, we're told that Galactica herself represented Caprica, the de facto capital of the colonies. Surely it stands to reason that the first battlestar built would be the one to represent the primary colony- Galactica. I know this is fanwanking, but I just thought of it and figured I'd voice my idea. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 12:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

== 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)
:::Perhaps tanks containing algae, submitted to given ranges of EM radiations? The idea of a garden is nice, but doesn't fit in the show, since no one ever walked in Galactica's garden. ;) That's why they needed Cloud 9. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Galactica class pic to rear its head again ==

I ran across [http://acedmagazine.com/images/stories/battlestargalactica/battlestargalactica23.jpg this picture], which shows the "Galactica class battlestar" sheet again. Thoughts? -- [[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''] 12:21, 25 November 2007 (CST)
:Shall we [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] whether this is official or just something the props department made up? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:Maybe put it on a more prominent place in the article, but explain that such props aren't necessarily official or reliable. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

== Main Battery Numbers ==
I have noticed that there is some confusion on the number of these guns. In examining the the picture of the ventral side, I have noticed 12 guns. 8 are marked, while 4 (two starboard and two port) are partially concealed by the bottom of the bow. They are roughly between the forward four guns and the first four midships guns. --[[User:Kregano|Kregano]] 19:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:There are twelve marked (8+4). With another 4, that would make the original number of 24 correct (16 ventral + 8 dorsal). That's why being so pedantic about trivial stuff like ship armament is kinda annoying. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:27, 14 January 2008 (CST)

== Why the flight pods must be retracted ==

When Galactica made the jump that broke her spine, her flight pods were still out. It would seem that jumping with the pods extended on this class of ship causes undue structural strain. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
: This was never the real reason for the strain. Having the flight pods extended doesn't cause strain... the jump itself caused strain, particularly after the stress from ramming the Colony and from the previous wear and tear Galactica experienced over the four years. Starting from the nuke impacting on Galactica in the Mini, the stress of continually jumping away from the Colonies, the "Adama Maneuver" at New Caprica, the various engagements with the Cylons throughout the series, going through the star cluster, etc., etc. Tigh said way back in Season Three that it would take weeks of Galactica in drydock just to knock out the dents... and he wasn't joking. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I know that. But jumping with the flight pods out (which has been thoroughly established to be a bad course of action for Galactica's class of battlestar) probably didn't help.
:::There are just too many circumstances that factored into ''Galactica'' breaking her back to make a clear argument for and against the flight pods being *the* main cause. Yes, in all the previous instances it has been said that ''Galactica'' couldn't (or couldn't afford) to jump with them extended. But Adama knew that this was her last mission, and just like Cain, coordinates or flight pods be damned, just jump or they're doomed just the same. BTW, the Raptors jumping inside the flight pod distrupted the structure, so it might very well have been impossible to retract at all.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
::::If you consider that a FTL drive might be calibrated to make jumps based on a given volume, or mass, themselves possibly relative to the center of gravity of the ship, the physics of the FTL drives might put greater strain onto the ship's superstructure if jumping without retracting the pods. One could think the retraction is necessary because of power requirements as well. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is so obvious that the retracted flight pods increase the lateral structural integrity of the ship. Why else would they retract into so completely?--[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== Mass packets? ==

I've removed this from the article, since it wasn't specifically sourced, although the wording states that Adama specifically mentioned this in the miniseries. Either way, the note needs to be more clearly written and better sourced, definitely. Note follows:

*Unknown number of Mass Packet Launchers (Important Editors note: The mention of this weapons technology is clearly mentioned by Admiral [[William Adama]] during the miniseries but is never mentioned again after the galactica runs out of this ammunition).

-- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Galactica (TRS)/Archive 1

2010-05-22T23:59:03Z

ViperMkII: /* Armor plating */

== Nice Work! ==

I enjoy reading about the new Galactica starship and look forward to more details as the series progresses...and to adding my own edits, too.

Keep up the good work on this page.

:On behalf of the rest of the team, thanks! This wiki has grown a lot from the work of a few hundred people and a lot of readers! [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:44, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:I am here, I make the edits. There was little choice in the matter. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], October 13, 2005

== Formatting Question ==

When formatting the "full name" of ''Galactica'' is it:

*...the ''[[Battlestar]] [[Galactica]]''
*...the [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
or
*...the [[Battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''?

It seems to me that it should be the second.

:"''Galactica''" or "the battlestar ''Galactica''"; never "the ''Galactica''". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See [[Battlestar wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:56, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

==Tallies==

FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:59, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:Why does it state that Galactica had 2 squadrons of MKVII's on board the ship at the begining of the series? This would be a big inconsistancy with what we saw in the miniseries.

:At the decommisioning ceremony we see one squadron of vipers led by Apollo doing a flyby. This squadron leaves the ship for Caprica after the ceremony and is rerouted to engage the cylons.

:When Starbuck is released from the brig she reports 20 pilots available but no vipers. Adama then orders the MKII's in the museum pressed into service.

:The squadron of MKVII's led by 'Ripper' is then destroyed by the cylon virus.

:IF there were 2 squadrons of MKVII's on the ship, where is that second squadron during all of this? It didn't launch with Ripper's squadron and it wasn't available for Starbuck and the other stranded pilots to use. (They didn't know the MKVII's were useless until after the first squadron was destroyed.)

:It's more likely that the MKVII's we see at Ragnor and later in the series are made up from homeless vipers that were carried to Ragnor with Roslin's fleet, plus a few spares put together from storage aboard Galactica.

::There are clearly twenty vipers on screen in Ripper's squadron. Galactica is then able to sortie a combined squadron of (roughly) 40 Mk. VIIs and Mk. IIs. This makes perfect sense if Galactica has two squadrons of Mk. VIIs based in its active (port) flight pod, and one squadron of Mk. IIs in the museum (starboard) flight pod.

::As for pilots, presumably the ones with ships had something better to do than be "climbing the walls down here". It's fairly typical for a military operation to have more pilots than craft in any case, so that's not an issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:47, 4 December 2005 (EST)

Well if there was another squadron of MVII's available at the time Starbuck mentions the 20 odd pilots in the ready room, where is that second squadron? If they are sortied after Ripper's mission, they would have been destroyed by the virus. If they're in the tubes waiting for a mission, why didn't they sortie to defend the ship?

This second squadron is never seen onscreen or mentioned in dialogue in the miniseries. It's more likely it didn't exist and the later MKVII's are refugees. Those vipers are at least seen on screen once, and later in the series its mentioned that there are some pilots from other battlestars flying off Galactica. (Crashdown is described as a refugee from "Triton", for example.)

:Crashdown was a Raptor pilot; Raptors have FTL and could go to another system, but I don't think Vipers could easily escape to Ragnar that well (unless, like Apollo, they landed on a nearby Civilian ship with Jump engines then escaped aboard that, but that seems unlikely).--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:50, 7 December 2005 (EST)
::Didn't Doral say during the flyby at the museum that it was performed by the last Galactica squadron. Since this was the squadron led by Ripper, it pretty much precludes a second squadron. Also, there could have been several Mk VIIs in storage, for spares or down for repairs. Maybe there were extra Mk IIs stored in the starboard hanger. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:57, 7 December 2005 (EST)
:::It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after ''Galactica'' was officially decomissioned. Also, on the off chance that I might be right, there may have been Vipers on other ships that survived as well. (For instance, there may have been a few were stragglers from earlier engagements, or even patrols that didn't see action during the assault on the Colonies that happened upon Roslin's fleet prior to Ragnar.) Just a thought or three... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::It would be informative to get an actual headcount during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. I have the launch scene about 2/3 analyzed, and will probably be able to finish it next week, but the video quality of my recording isn't perfect. I'll let you know what I come up with, in any case. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::Oh, one more thing - In the mini, Adama says "I seem to remember an entire squadron of fighters down in the starboard hangar deck yesterday". If there were two squadrons of Mk. IIs, he would've said so. Again, two squadrons of Mk. VIIs (one destroyed) and one squadron of Mk. IIs fits the on-screen evidence nicely. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:48, 8 December 2005 (EST)

::::The only problem with that is that the second squadron doesn't seem to show up until the battle at Ragnor. What was it doing all this time? If the count of MKVII's is under 20, it makes sense that the MKVII's at Ragnor were made up of a small group of spares that were put together onboard Galactica along with whatever refugees were picked up by Roslin's fleet. We know for sure that there were at least three MKVII's with that fleet that were shown onscreen.--Dallan007
:::::Didn't Starbuck's lines in that scene imply that there were no operational fighters. I believe it was something along the lines of "pilots you got, but Vipers..." I think the Mk VIIs they have were straglers the RTFF picked up before they jumped to Ragnar. These could have been on patrol or something and met up with Colonial One et al. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::Maybe the Mk. VII wing wasn't sortied before Ragnar because the systems had to be stripped of Baltar's CNP. There are far too many Mk. VIIs in the Ragnar battle to be anything less than a full wing, though. I'll have a real tally up as soon as I can. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:38, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::They didn't know about the CNP weakness yet. The purging didn't happen until they were at Ragnar, after the first sortie. Remember, it was the same time as Doral was accused of being a Cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST)
:::::::::Perhaps, before the first sortie, Gaeta had the remaining Mark VIIs grounded as a precaution since he hears of the malfunctions from Dualla before the fight and makes the association with the CNP (he's bright that way). Or, yes, the Mark VIIs were gathered up in Roslin's search (most probable since Galactica should launch everything they had in sortie 1, and they would rather send Mark VII's than the museum pieces). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::::The squadron ready room would seem to imply a 20-ship squadron. There are 24 seats in the ready room, 20 pilots plus a few seats for guests like Apollo. Boomer and Helo were flying with the last Mk VII squadron so it would make sense that they would be there in the mini. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 12:27, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Redundancy ==
=== Fleet Details ===

'''Designation''': warship, battlestar type, [[Galactica type battlestar|original battlestar class]] (class name unknown).

'''Deployment''': Formerly an element of the [[75th Battlestar Group]] (BSG 75)

'''Current Status''': One of [[Pegasus (RDM) |two]] remaining Colonial military units. ''Galactica'' is commanded by [[William Adama]].

=== Fleet Details Comments ===
The only piece of information in that block which is not mentioned before it is the membership is BSG 75; this was an oversight. I'll add mention of it in the paragraph before. The remainder is redundant and shockingly poor in formatting. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
:Since you've been around and not commented, Merovingian, I'll pull it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:26, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::I was busy. It's not redundant, and I am restoring it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:46, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::What information does it contain that is not elsewhere in this article? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 13:55, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Boxes provide quick and easy referrence. I mean, we wouldn't have a box listing ship class and armaments by that logic. It's fun, and makes it clearer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::That's not a box. The info box made for the purpose does mention the designation and CO. The BSG 75 thing is at best a curiosity utterly unworthy of quick reference, not that I agree that randomly ordered sentence fragments are actually easier to skim. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Seemed pretty redundant to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:57, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

===Turrets===
[[Image:BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg|thumb|An example of one of ''Galactica's'' large projectile weapons.]]
''Galactica's'' defenses include an array of twenty-four large turret mounted, dual-role twin-cannons, and a multitude of smaller turret mounted twin-guns located between the ''Galactica's'' "[[Frame|ribs]]", along the [[flight pod]]s. Together, these provide the ''Galactica'' with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles ([[Miniseries]], "[[Scattered]]"). In addition, the large cannons represent ''Galactica's'' main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like [[Basestar]]s ("[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]").
=== Turrets Comments ===
I don't mind the picture, though I don't think it adds much. It could be tied to the page simply as an illustration of "Armament" per the title of the larger section.
The composition of the turret armament is discussed on the page for the type. The details on the positioning are slightly incorrect, anyway. That they produce flak is obvious; that the large guns are effective against basestars could be assumed, and, if it must be mentioned, should be mentioned on the page for the type. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:Agree. [[Galactica type battlestar]] should host details relevant to the ship class in general. [[Galactica (RDM)]] should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

==Battlestar Group==
See [[talk:Pegasus (RDM)#Battlestar Group|talk on Pegasus page]]

==Improvements for featured article status==
I think that we should make the following minor changes before declaring this a featured article:
*Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox
*Reconsider the implementation of the "running tallies" section. My objection is mainly based on the fact that the current setup precludes the use of footnotes in this article, and is probably more information than the average user is interested in. I personally feel that we should break each tally into a separate article and link it from the appropriate summary in the equipment section.
*If, however, we decide keep the running tallies on this page, a simple retitle of the section to "Sources and Rationalle" is necessary. Also, we should seriously consider moving over to the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
:<strike>Item 1</strike>
:As for #2 (a or b)... I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does seem to overwhelm the bottom, and any other footnootes would get drowned out. I guess I'd lean towards them becoming subarticles (of either Galactica (RDM) or of their respective topic (Viper (RDM), Raptor, etc)), or maybe to the front of their respective topics (on the main of Viper (RDM) and Raptor). I'll defer to others on this one, though. Also... could the article stand to have perhaps one more external shot of ''Galactica''? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

::I agree with SteelViper on #2: if you just move it to another article, but keep a link to the tallies section at the bottom, I have no strong feelings on such a change. (BTW, what do you mean "Rationalle"?). --->However, I have to disagree on "Fleet details": I agree that saying its "designation" and "current status" is already in the box, however, the box doesn't mention what Battlestar Group it (nor does this justify changing the box template, because only this article and Pegasus would have such info): I'm going to change it back to a compromise position and tell me what you think. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
:::On second thought, nevermind: it already says enough about BSG info in the introductory paragraph. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:06, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
::::That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I've tried breaking out the Raptor and Viper tallies into their own articles. Let me know what you think; it's easy to revert if people don't like it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

:I didn't see anything wrong with the breakout; I was severely dismayed by the self-argumentative tone in one section of the article (now revised). I've also made significant concision and adjustments as well as adding more links to material that should give the article more ''ooompf''. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

What's left todo on this before "FA" status? Also... any thoughts on my picture thought above? (Another external shot of "Big G" somewhere else on this page?) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:External shots should be of ''Galactica'' doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:38, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:Agreed. I've also gone through the article again and given the language more polish and super-conventionized it. I'm happy with the text, but fresh photos of the Big G moving about would be neat. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::Looking through the "screenshots" category, I wasn't impressed by the selection. I hit Galacticastation for some examples and looked at the mini since I figured they'd feature her prominently there. I found [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm top view], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm side viper], and [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side Fleet]. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless [[The Fleet (RDM)]] article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::Should I go ahead and upload the Galacticastation versions (576x320), or should we have one of our resident screen capture artists grab something higher quality (DVD or High-def)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on [[Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images|Requested Images]] for higher quality versions. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:20, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::::Internal links to:
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal top.jpg|top view]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal side viper.jpg|side viper]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini side fleet.jpg|side fleet]]
::::::They're prepped and ready to be added to the gumbo that is the wiki (though they could probably use better tagging, but being from Galacticastation I'm not sure of the original signal source). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:53, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
:::::::Side viper and top view added. I added them as non-thumbnails in an effort for them to be less intrusive. I left out "side fleet" as that got added to [[the Fleet (RDM)]], but it could be added if somebody wants to make room. We should be careful not to overdo it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::::: I changed them to thumbs because I think it looks cleaner having a clear delineation between text and image. Revert if you wish and we can talk about it. I also added some kind of place-holder captions, which might be improved upon by someone who has a clearer idea of the purpose of the images are (other than look: a space boat). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:55, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

I added appropriate captions to the thumbs. I'm normally a non-thumb guy as I think we overuse it for pictures where the context is already present and so further captioning is unnecessary, nor do I see the bordering as needed. However, the thumbs here don't detract, so there you go. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:13, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
:So is this good to go for "FA"? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:25, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
::I think the article's come a long way; yes, I believe it's ready. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:32, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
What do you guys think of the orthos I added to the bottom. (Thanks Mercifull, I forgot to add back in the bottom one.) --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:30, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

:That Starship Modeler booger on the 2nd image annoys me since it wasn't their image in the first place. I'd rather get rid of it or get a clean one (it appears to be merely cropped from the first, anyway). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:13, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

== Starboard flight pod ==

[[Image:Starboard_pod.jpg|thumb|''Galactica's'' starboard pod ([[Maelstrom]]).]]
That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST)
* Not only that, I'm pretty sure I heard a reference in A Measure of Salvation to a landing in the starboard pod. Fair to say it's back in service? [[User:Mr. Random|Mr. Random]] 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST)
**The launch tubes might be in operation, but the bays are apparently still encased, as seen in a sweeping shot in Maelstrom.--[[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 02:57, 12 January 2008 (CST)
***But Raptors cannot use the launch tubes. Actually although the front of the flightpod is closed, the back has been fully opened up (although there are very few shots of it). By the Episode No Exit the front can be seen as fully open in one new shot of the ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Missile tubes ==

I think we should include the missile tubes along with Galactica's other weapon systems. When Adama ordered the Galactica to prepare for the ground strike, he had them load tubes 4 through 10, which means there are at least 10 missile tubes. However the effect shot seemed to show (at least to my current recollection) 2 rows of missile tubes, one of which had every door open but one, which would mean Galactica has 14 tubes, at least. She may have more on the other side of the ship (were the tubes mounted on the top of the hull or the bottom? I couldn't tell.) [[User:Gutter Monkey|Gutter Monkey]] 20:55, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:Top of the ship, and I think it was 12 tubes not 14. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

::Yep, definitely twelve tubes; two rows of six. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 03:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)

:::Good, my eyes aren't failing me (Yet). --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:07, 17 December 2006 (CST)

== Nuclear warhead yield ==

The author of the nuke section considers that by the size of the missiles, their yield could go from 5 to 150 kilotons. Yet, if the missiles are particularly huge, such a low yield is illogical. Not even modern nukes would easily fit in decent compact casings and be capable of delivering many hundreds of kilotons, but if those missile tubes are supposedly large, so would the missiles, and cramming multi-megaton warheads into them would be a cinch. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

== Armor plating ==

If I recall, the ribs on ''Galactica's'' hull were supposedly covered with armor plating originally. Which would imply that at the time of the First Cylon War it was in place. However, in the first Razor flashback, there was no armor plating, even though the ship was fairly new at the time. Just an oversight maybe, any thoughts? --[[User:Maserati1945|Maserati1945]] 22:07, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

: Firstly, this has been floating around the fandom for sometime now. I don't know why, because there's nothing official to back it up; the only things that we know got changed on the Big G were the starboard landing bay for it to become a museum. Actually, as so far as we've been able to tell, the ribs are actually part of the design. This seems to be backed up by [[Lee Stringer]], who worked in the Miniseries. [http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=180&t=8278 From a post he made on MediaBlvd], "In regards to the ribs, I believe that the ribs were always part of the design. In my opinion, they are a defense feature that would protect the Galactica from any incoming missiles unless they approached it from a perpendicular trajectory. Any angular deviation from 90 degrees would have the missile impact the ribs and not the hull underneath."
: Also, I believe the hull armor removal claim was later refuted as well... I just haven't been able to dig that up yet either.
: Either way, the visible ribbing makes wonderful sense, as you don't need a smooth hull in space for the fact that you don't have any atmospheric drag to worry about. -- [[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''] 22:46, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
::I think it comes from the fact that there are some areas on the hull with seemingly incomplete plating. The armor there is, is very irregular. Sometimes it's just a very small slab of metal that seems to have no function, thus appearing incomplete. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:34, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

In season 4 the idea that Galactica is not armored is put to rest when we see that she has an inner hull as well as an outer hull; the very nature of an outer hull in that of armor. With this in mind, the ribbing and the top platting is a second and third layer of armor. Though unconfirmed in the series, the idea of the ribbing may be related to real-life Explosive reactive armor used on tanks; the top plating obviously is additional protection over vital areas.--[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== Cargo ==

Is it just me, or do the crates and boxes in Galactica's corridors seem to increase in number over time? In the miniseries, there are nearly none, and by Season 3 they seem to be everywhere. Why exactly would this happen? --[[User:Isidis|Isidis]] 14:38, 11 November 2007 (CST)
: I imagine ''Pegasus'' had something to do with that. Also, ''Galactica'' had to house families after [[New Caprica]], so they might have moved stuff around in order to set up living space. -- [[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''] 14:45, 11 November 2007 (CST)
::I agree. It is probable that things have been moved out of storage rooms to provide bunking space for a ship that not only has the bulk of ''Pegasus'''s old crew, but some VIP civilians, the remainder housed in [[Camp Oil Slick]] as a result of the destruction of ''[[Cloud 9]]'' and several ship's worth of crowded space. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Talk:Galactica type battlestar/Archive 1

2010-05-22T08:13:36Z

ViperMkII: /* Picture of destroyed Galactica-type Battlestar */

:: 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)
Also possible that the Galactica was origionally heavily armored like the Columbia but retrofitted. Then the other 1st war ships of its type were eventually decomissioned, whilst other Galactica Type Battlestars were made after the war without the extra armor (and other things we don't know about) to the new upgraded design of the Galactica type, therefore a different kind of ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What everyone here has failed to realize is that in BSG, the real life progression of technology that we experienced from WWII up to the present day does not exist; remember that the pre-war colonies were only superficially more advanced then the post war colonies. Based upon on screen information, it seems that the core of Colonial technology has not advanced by much from the time of the first Cylon war up to the attack on the colonies. The Galactica is not a WWII battleship/carrier running with analog systems. She seems to have very advanced computers, for example, a computer that can quickly compute something like a FTL jump has to be advanced, not to mention the computer/s that control the hundreds of point defense guns. Admiral Cain stated that a significant difference between the BSG and the Pegasus is the computer network and the automation that it controls. This in no way implies that Galactica's computers are inferior, just that they are not networked and as a result the ship requires more human coordination. There is also no evidence that the Galactica never received refits/replacement/upgrades of her original computer cores as well as here many other systems, of course there is no evidence to support the idea other than real-life navy practice. So one has to ask, is the Galactica really that out of date technology wise? I am of the opinion that the remark from the miniseries meant that Galactica was the last of the originals, still in the war-time configuration. As for the destroyed Galactica type, it is not that unreasonable to assume that it is an early post-war ship, utilizing the same outer hull configuration but with updated internals such as increased network-controlled automation. I base this upon real-life ship design, looking at the list of modern destroyers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_classes_of_the_United_States_Navy]; when the navy finds a hull design that works they tend to stick with it, changing the internals with each subsequent class. Other examples are the F-18 hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet, as well as the Nimitz class carriers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier]. On the Nimitz page, read the section on the "Design differences within the class", particularly the ROCH part. Also read the "Future" section which states that the next class of carrier is "using an almost identical hull design". --[[User:ViperMkII|ViperMkII]] 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== 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)
I hate to dredge up an old topic, but here's some food for thought that might support the theory that ''Galactica'' is the class name. Now, we're told that Galactica herself represented Caprica, the de facto capital of the colonies. Surely it stands to reason that the first battlestar built would be the one to represent the primary colony- Galactica. I know this is fanwanking, but I just thought of it and figured I'd voice my idea. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 12:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

== 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)
:::Perhaps tanks containing algae, submitted to given ranges of EM radiations? The idea of a garden is nice, but doesn't fit in the show, since no one ever walked in Galactica's garden. ;) That's why they needed Cloud 9. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Galactica class pic to rear its head again ==

I ran across [http://acedmagazine.com/images/stories/battlestargalactica/battlestargalactica23.jpg this picture], which shows the "Galactica class battlestar" sheet again. Thoughts? -- [[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''] 12:21, 25 November 2007 (CST)
:Shall we [[BW:OC|ask Brad]] whether this is official or just something the props department made up? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]]) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (CST)
:Maybe put it on a more prominent place in the article, but explain that such props aren't necessarily official or reliable. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

== Main Battery Numbers ==
I have noticed that there is some confusion on the number of these guns. In examining the the picture of the ventral side, I have noticed 12 guns. 8 are marked, while 4 (two starboard and two port) are partially concealed by the bottom of the bow. They are roughly between the forward four guns and the first four midships guns. --[[User:Kregano|Kregano]] 19:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)
:There are twelve marked (8+4). With another 4, that would make the original number of 24 correct (16 ventral + 8 dorsal). That's why being so pedantic about trivial stuff like ship armament is kinda annoying. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 02:27, 14 January 2008 (CST)

== Why the flight pods must be retracted ==

When Galactica made the jump that broke her spine, her flight pods were still out. It would seem that jumping with the pods extended on this class of ship causes undue structural strain. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
: This was never the real reason for the strain. Having the flight pods extended doesn't cause strain... the jump itself caused strain, particularly after the stress from ramming the Colony and from the previous wear and tear Galactica experienced over the four years. Starting from the nuke impacting on Galactica in the Mini, the stress of continually jumping away from the Colonies, the "Adama Maneuver" at New Caprica, the various engagements with the Cylons throughout the series, going through the star cluster, etc., etc. Tigh said way back in Season Three that it would take weeks of Galactica in drydock just to knock out the dents... and he wasn't joking. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I know that. But jumping with the flight pods out (which has been thoroughly established to be a bad course of action for Galactica's class of battlestar) probably didn't help.
:::There are just too many circumstances that factored into ''Galactica'' breaking her back to make a clear argument for and against the flight pods being *the* main cause. Yes, in all the previous instances it has been said that ''Galactica'' couldn't (or couldn't afford) to jump with them extended. But Adama knew that this was her last mission, and just like Cain, coordinates or flight pods be damned, just jump or they're doomed just the same. BTW, the Raptors jumping inside the flight pod distrupted the structure, so it might very well have been impossible to retract at all.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
::::If you consider that a FTL drive might be calibrated to make jumps based on a given volume, or mass, themselves possibly relative to the center of gravity of the ship, the physics of the FTL drives might put greater strain onto the ship's superstructure if jumping without retracting the pods. One could think the retraction is necessary because of power requirements as well. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 01:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Mass packets? ==

I've removed this from the article, since it wasn't specifically sourced, although the wording states that Adama specifically mentioned this in the miniseries. Either way, the note needs to be more clearly written and better sourced, definitely. Note follows:

*Unknown number of Mass Packet Launchers (Important Editors note: The mention of this weapons technology is clearly mentioned by Admiral [[William Adama]] during the miniseries but is never mentioned again after the galactica runs out of this ammunition).

-- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]] 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Galactica (TRS)/Archive 1

2010-05-21T19:41:30Z

ViperMkII: /* Armor plating */

== Nice Work! ==

I enjoy reading about the new Galactica starship and look forward to more details as the series progresses...and to adding my own edits, too.

Keep up the good work on this page.

:On behalf of the rest of the team, thanks! This wiki has grown a lot from the work of a few hundred people and a lot of readers! [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:44, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:I am here, I make the edits. There was little choice in the matter. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], October 13, 2005

== Formatting Question ==

When formatting the "full name" of ''Galactica'' is it:

*...the ''[[Battlestar]] [[Galactica]]''
*...the [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
or
*...the [[Battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''?

It seems to me that it should be the second.

:"''Galactica''" or "the battlestar ''Galactica''"; never "the ''Galactica''". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See [[Battlestar wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:56, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

==Tallies==

FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:59, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:Why does it state that Galactica had 2 squadrons of MKVII's on board the ship at the begining of the series? This would be a big inconsistancy with what we saw in the miniseries.

:At the decommisioning ceremony we see one squadron of vipers led by Apollo doing a flyby. This squadron leaves the ship for Caprica after the ceremony and is rerouted to engage the cylons.

:When Starbuck is released from the brig she reports 20 pilots available but no vipers. Adama then orders the MKII's in the museum pressed into service.

:The squadron of MKVII's led by 'Ripper' is then destroyed by the cylon virus.

:IF there were 2 squadrons of MKVII's on the ship, where is that second squadron during all of this? It didn't launch with Ripper's squadron and it wasn't available for Starbuck and the other stranded pilots to use. (They didn't know the MKVII's were useless until after the first squadron was destroyed.)

:It's more likely that the MKVII's we see at Ragnor and later in the series are made up from homeless vipers that were carried to Ragnor with Roslin's fleet, plus a few spares put together from storage aboard Galactica.

::There are clearly twenty vipers on screen in Ripper's squadron. Galactica is then able to sortie a combined squadron of (roughly) 40 Mk. VIIs and Mk. IIs. This makes perfect sense if Galactica has two squadrons of Mk. VIIs based in its active (port) flight pod, and one squadron of Mk. IIs in the museum (starboard) flight pod.

::As for pilots, presumably the ones with ships had something better to do than be "climbing the walls down here". It's fairly typical for a military operation to have more pilots than craft in any case, so that's not an issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:47, 4 December 2005 (EST)

Well if there was another squadron of MVII's available at the time Starbuck mentions the 20 odd pilots in the ready room, where is that second squadron? If they are sortied after Ripper's mission, they would have been destroyed by the virus. If they're in the tubes waiting for a mission, why didn't they sortie to defend the ship?

This second squadron is never seen onscreen or mentioned in dialogue in the miniseries. It's more likely it didn't exist and the later MKVII's are refugees. Those vipers are at least seen on screen once, and later in the series its mentioned that there are some pilots from other battlestars flying off Galactica. (Crashdown is described as a refugee from "Triton", for example.)

:Crashdown was a Raptor pilot; Raptors have FTL and could go to another system, but I don't think Vipers could easily escape to Ragnar that well (unless, like Apollo, they landed on a nearby Civilian ship with Jump engines then escaped aboard that, but that seems unlikely).--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:50, 7 December 2005 (EST)
::Didn't Doral say during the flyby at the museum that it was performed by the last Galactica squadron. Since this was the squadron led by Ripper, it pretty much precludes a second squadron. Also, there could have been several Mk VIIs in storage, for spares or down for repairs. Maybe there were extra Mk IIs stored in the starboard hanger. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:57, 7 December 2005 (EST)
:::It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after ''Galactica'' was officially decomissioned. Also, on the off chance that I might be right, there may have been Vipers on other ships that survived as well. (For instance, there may have been a few were stragglers from earlier engagements, or even patrols that didn't see action during the assault on the Colonies that happened upon Roslin's fleet prior to Ragnar.) Just a thought or three... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::It would be informative to get an actual headcount during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. I have the launch scene about 2/3 analyzed, and will probably be able to finish it next week, but the video quality of my recording isn't perfect. I'll let you know what I come up with, in any case. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::Oh, one more thing - In the mini, Adama says "I seem to remember an entire squadron of fighters down in the starboard hangar deck yesterday". If there were two squadrons of Mk. IIs, he would've said so. Again, two squadrons of Mk. VIIs (one destroyed) and one squadron of Mk. IIs fits the on-screen evidence nicely. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:48, 8 December 2005 (EST)

::::The only problem with that is that the second squadron doesn't seem to show up until the battle at Ragnor. What was it doing all this time? If the count of MKVII's is under 20, it makes sense that the MKVII's at Ragnor were made up of a small group of spares that were put together onboard Galactica along with whatever refugees were picked up by Roslin's fleet. We know for sure that there were at least three MKVII's with that fleet that were shown onscreen.--Dallan007
:::::Didn't Starbuck's lines in that scene imply that there were no operational fighters. I believe it was something along the lines of "pilots you got, but Vipers..." I think the Mk VIIs they have were straglers the RTFF picked up before they jumped to Ragnar. These could have been on patrol or something and met up with Colonial One et al. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::Maybe the Mk. VII wing wasn't sortied before Ragnar because the systems had to be stripped of Baltar's CNP. There are far too many Mk. VIIs in the Ragnar battle to be anything less than a full wing, though. I'll have a real tally up as soon as I can. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:38, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::They didn't know about the CNP weakness yet. The purging didn't happen until they were at Ragnar, after the first sortie. Remember, it was the same time as Doral was accused of being a Cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST)
:::::::::Perhaps, before the first sortie, Gaeta had the remaining Mark VIIs grounded as a precaution since he hears of the malfunctions from Dualla before the fight and makes the association with the CNP (he's bright that way). Or, yes, the Mark VIIs were gathered up in Roslin's search (most probable since Galactica should launch everything they had in sortie 1, and they would rather send Mark VII's than the museum pieces). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::::The squadron ready room would seem to imply a 20-ship squadron. There are 24 seats in the ready room, 20 pilots plus a few seats for guests like Apollo. Boomer and Helo were flying with the last Mk VII squadron so it would make sense that they would be there in the mini. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 12:27, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Redundancy ==
=== Fleet Details ===

'''Designation''': warship, battlestar type, [[Galactica type battlestar|original battlestar class]] (class name unknown).

'''Deployment''': Formerly an element of the [[75th Battlestar Group]] (BSG 75)

'''Current Status''': One of [[Pegasus (RDM) |two]] remaining Colonial military units. ''Galactica'' is commanded by [[William Adama]].

=== Fleet Details Comments ===
The only piece of information in that block which is not mentioned before it is the membership is BSG 75; this was an oversight. I'll add mention of it in the paragraph before. The remainder is redundant and shockingly poor in formatting. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
:Since you've been around and not commented, Merovingian, I'll pull it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:26, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::I was busy. It's not redundant, and I am restoring it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:46, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::What information does it contain that is not elsewhere in this article? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 13:55, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Boxes provide quick and easy referrence. I mean, we wouldn't have a box listing ship class and armaments by that logic. It's fun, and makes it clearer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::That's not a box. The info box made for the purpose does mention the designation and CO. The BSG 75 thing is at best a curiosity utterly unworthy of quick reference, not that I agree that randomly ordered sentence fragments are actually easier to skim. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Seemed pretty redundant to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:57, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

===Turrets===
[[Image:BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg|thumb|An example of one of ''Galactica's'' large projectile weapons.]]
''Galactica's'' defenses include an array of twenty-four large turret mounted, dual-role twin-cannons, and a multitude of smaller turret mounted twin-guns located between the ''Galactica's'' "[[Frame|ribs]]", along the [[flight pod]]s. Together, these provide the ''Galactica'' with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles ([[Miniseries]], "[[Scattered]]"). In addition, the large cannons represent ''Galactica's'' main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like [[Basestar]]s ("[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]").
=== Turrets Comments ===
I don't mind the picture, though I don't think it adds much. It could be tied to the page simply as an illustration of "Armament" per the title of the larger section.
The composition of the turret armament is discussed on the page for the type. The details on the positioning are slightly incorrect, anyway. That they produce flak is obvious; that the large guns are effective against basestars could be assumed, and, if it must be mentioned, should be mentioned on the page for the type. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:Agree. [[Galactica type battlestar]] should host details relevant to the ship class in general. [[Galactica (RDM)]] should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

==Battlestar Group==
See [[talk:Pegasus (RDM)#Battlestar Group|talk on Pegasus page]]

==Improvements for featured article status==
I think that we should make the following minor changes before declaring this a featured article:
*Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox
*Reconsider the implementation of the "running tallies" section. My objection is mainly based on the fact that the current setup precludes the use of footnotes in this article, and is probably more information than the average user is interested in. I personally feel that we should break each tally into a separate article and link it from the appropriate summary in the equipment section.
*If, however, we decide keep the running tallies on this page, a simple retitle of the section to "Sources and Rationalle" is necessary. Also, we should seriously consider moving over to the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
:<strike>Item 1</strike>
:As for #2 (a or b)... I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does seem to overwhelm the bottom, and any other footnootes would get drowned out. I guess I'd lean towards them becoming subarticles (of either Galactica (RDM) or of their respective topic (Viper (RDM), Raptor, etc)), or maybe to the front of their respective topics (on the main of Viper (RDM) and Raptor). I'll defer to others on this one, though. Also... could the article stand to have perhaps one more external shot of ''Galactica''? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

::I agree with SteelViper on #2: if you just move it to another article, but keep a link to the tallies section at the bottom, I have no strong feelings on such a change. (BTW, what do you mean "Rationalle"?). --->However, I have to disagree on "Fleet details": I agree that saying its "designation" and "current status" is already in the box, however, the box doesn't mention what Battlestar Group it (nor does this justify changing the box template, because only this article and Pegasus would have such info): I'm going to change it back to a compromise position and tell me what you think. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
:::On second thought, nevermind: it already says enough about BSG info in the introductory paragraph. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:06, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
::::That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I've tried breaking out the Raptor and Viper tallies into their own articles. Let me know what you think; it's easy to revert if people don't like it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

:I didn't see anything wrong with the breakout; I was severely dismayed by the self-argumentative tone in one section of the article (now revised). I've also made significant concision and adjustments as well as adding more links to material that should give the article more ''ooompf''. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

What's left todo on this before "FA" status? Also... any thoughts on my picture thought above? (Another external shot of "Big G" somewhere else on this page?) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:External shots should be of ''Galactica'' doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:38, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:Agreed. I've also gone through the article again and given the language more polish and super-conventionized it. I'm happy with the text, but fresh photos of the Big G moving about would be neat. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::Looking through the "screenshots" category, I wasn't impressed by the selection. I hit Galacticastation for some examples and looked at the mini since I figured they'd feature her prominently there. I found [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm top view], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm side viper], and [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side Fleet]. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless [[The Fleet (RDM)]] article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::Should I go ahead and upload the Galacticastation versions (576x320), or should we have one of our resident screen capture artists grab something higher quality (DVD or High-def)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on [[Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images|Requested Images]] for higher quality versions. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:20, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::::Internal links to:
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal top.jpg|top view]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal side viper.jpg|side viper]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini side fleet.jpg|side fleet]]
::::::They're prepped and ready to be added to the gumbo that is the wiki (though they could probably use better tagging, but being from Galacticastation I'm not sure of the original signal source). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:53, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
:::::::Side viper and top view added. I added them as non-thumbnails in an effort for them to be less intrusive. I left out "side fleet" as that got added to [[the Fleet (RDM)]], but it could be added if somebody wants to make room. We should be careful not to overdo it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::::: I changed them to thumbs because I think it looks cleaner having a clear delineation between text and image. Revert if you wish and we can talk about it. I also added some kind of place-holder captions, which might be improved upon by someone who has a clearer idea of the purpose of the images are (other than look: a space boat). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:55, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

I added appropriate captions to the thumbs. I'm normally a non-thumb guy as I think we overuse it for pictures where the context is already present and so further captioning is unnecessary, nor do I see the bordering as needed. However, the thumbs here don't detract, so there you go. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:13, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
:So is this good to go for "FA"? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:25, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
::I think the article's come a long way; yes, I believe it's ready. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:32, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
What do you guys think of the orthos I added to the bottom. (Thanks Mercifull, I forgot to add back in the bottom one.) --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:30, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

:That Starship Modeler booger on the 2nd image annoys me since it wasn't their image in the first place. I'd rather get rid of it or get a clean one (it appears to be merely cropped from the first, anyway). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:13, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

== Starboard flight pod ==

[[Image:Starboard_pod.jpg|thumb|''Galactica's'' starboard pod ([[Maelstrom]]).]]
That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST)
* Not only that, I'm pretty sure I heard a reference in A Measure of Salvation to a landing in the starboard pod. Fair to say it's back in service? [[User:Mr. Random|Mr. Random]] 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST)
**The launch tubes might be in operation, but the bays are apparently still encased, as seen in a sweeping shot in Maelstrom.--[[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 02:57, 12 January 2008 (CST)
***But Raptors cannot use the launch tubes. Actually although the front of the flightpod is closed, the back has been fully opened up (although there are very few shots of it). By the Episode No Exit the front can be seen as fully open in one new shot of the ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Missile tubes ==

I think we should include the missile tubes along with Galactica's other weapon systems. When Adama ordered the Galactica to prepare for the ground strike, he had them load tubes 4 through 10, which means there are at least 10 missile tubes. However the effect shot seemed to show (at least to my current recollection) 2 rows of missile tubes, one of which had every door open but one, which would mean Galactica has 14 tubes, at least. She may have more on the other side of the ship (were the tubes mounted on the top of the hull or the bottom? I couldn't tell.) [[User:Gutter Monkey|Gutter Monkey]] 20:55, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:Top of the ship, and I think it was 12 tubes not 14. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

::Yep, definitely twelve tubes; two rows of six. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 03:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)

:::Good, my eyes aren't failing me (Yet). --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:07, 17 December 2006 (CST)

== Nuclear warhead yield ==

The author of the nuke section considers that by the size of the missiles, their yield could go from 5 to 150 kilotons. Yet, if the missiles are particularly huge, such a low yield is illogical. Not even modern nukes would easily fit in decent compact casings and be capable of delivering many hundreds of kilotons, but if those missile tubes are supposedly large, so would the missiles, and cramming multi-megaton warheads into them would be a cinch. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

== Armor plating ==

If I recall, the ribs on ''Galactica's'' hull were supposedly covered with armor plating originally. Which would imply that at the time of the First Cylon War it was in place. However, in the first Razor flashback, there was no armor plating, even though the ship was fairly new at the time. Just an oversight maybe, any thoughts? --[[User:Maserati1945|Maserati1945]] 22:07, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

: Firstly, this has been floating around the fandom for sometime now. I don't know why, because there's nothing official to back it up; the only things that we know got changed on the Big G were the starboard landing bay for it to become a museum. Actually, as so far as we've been able to tell, the ribs are actually part of the design. This seems to be backed up by [[Lee Stringer]], who worked in the Miniseries. [http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=180&t=8278 From a post he made on MediaBlvd], "In regards to the ribs, I believe that the ribs were always part of the design. In my opinion, they are a defense feature that would protect the Galactica from any incoming missiles unless they approached it from a perpendicular trajectory. Any angular deviation from 90 degrees would have the missile impact the ribs and not the hull underneath."
: Also, I believe the hull armor removal claim was later refuted as well... I just haven't been able to dig that up yet either.
: Either way, the visible ribbing makes wonderful sense, as you don't need a smooth hull in space for the fact that you don't have any atmospheric drag to worry about. -- [[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''] 22:46, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
::I think it comes from the fact that there are some areas on the hull with seemingly incomplete plating. The armor there is, is very irregular. Sometimes it's just a very small slab of metal that seems to have no function, thus appearing incomplete. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:34, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

In season 4 the idea that Galactica is not armored is put to rest when we see that she has an inner hull as well as an outer hull; the very nature of an outer hull in that of armor. With this in mind, the ribbing and the top platting is a second and third layer of armor. Though unconfirmed in the series, the idea of the ribbing may be related to real-life Explosive reactive armor used on tanks; the top plating obviously is additional protection over vital areas. --ViperMkII 14.40, 21 May 2010

== Cargo ==

Is it just me, or do the crates and boxes in Galactica's corridors seem to increase in number over time? In the miniseries, there are nearly none, and by Season 3 they seem to be everywhere. Why exactly would this happen? --[[User:Isidis|Isidis]] 14:38, 11 November 2007 (CST)
: I imagine ''Pegasus'' had something to do with that. Also, ''Galactica'' had to house families after [[New Caprica]], so they might have moved stuff around in order to set up living space. -- [[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''] 14:45, 11 November 2007 (CST)
::I agree. It is probable that things have been moved out of storage rooms to provide bunking space for a ship that not only has the bulk of ''Pegasus'''s old crew, but some VIP civilians, the remainder housed in [[Camp Oil Slick]] as a result of the destruction of ''[[Cloud 9]]'' and several ship's worth of crowded space. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Talk:Galactica (TRS)/Archive 1

2010-05-21T19:40:50Z

ViperMkII: /* Armor plating */

== Nice Work! ==

I enjoy reading about the new Galactica starship and look forward to more details as the series progresses...and to adding my own edits, too.

Keep up the good work on this page.

:On behalf of the rest of the team, thanks! This wiki has grown a lot from the work of a few hundred people and a lot of readers! [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:44, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:I am here, I make the edits. There was little choice in the matter. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], October 13, 2005

== Formatting Question ==

When formatting the "full name" of ''Galactica'' is it:

*...the ''[[Battlestar]] [[Galactica]]''
*...the [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''
or
*...the [[Battlestar|battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]''?

It seems to me that it should be the second.

:"''Galactica''" or "the battlestar ''Galactica''"; never "the ''Galactica''". Battleship and aircraft carrier are not proper nouns, so battlestar isn't either. See [[Battlestar wiki:Standards and Conventions#Ships]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:56, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

==Tallies==

FYI, I'm working on a fairly major revamp of these, using MASON and Joe's source page idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:59, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

:Why does it state that Galactica had 2 squadrons of MKVII's on board the ship at the begining of the series? This would be a big inconsistancy with what we saw in the miniseries.

:At the decommisioning ceremony we see one squadron of vipers led by Apollo doing a flyby. This squadron leaves the ship for Caprica after the ceremony and is rerouted to engage the cylons.

:When Starbuck is released from the brig she reports 20 pilots available but no vipers. Adama then orders the MKII's in the museum pressed into service.

:The squadron of MKVII's led by 'Ripper' is then destroyed by the cylon virus.

:IF there were 2 squadrons of MKVII's on the ship, where is that second squadron during all of this? It didn't launch with Ripper's squadron and it wasn't available for Starbuck and the other stranded pilots to use. (They didn't know the MKVII's were useless until after the first squadron was destroyed.)

:It's more likely that the MKVII's we see at Ragnor and later in the series are made up from homeless vipers that were carried to Ragnor with Roslin's fleet, plus a few spares put together from storage aboard Galactica.

::There are clearly twenty vipers on screen in Ripper's squadron. Galactica is then able to sortie a combined squadron of (roughly) 40 Mk. VIIs and Mk. IIs. This makes perfect sense if Galactica has two squadrons of Mk. VIIs based in its active (port) flight pod, and one squadron of Mk. IIs in the museum (starboard) flight pod.

::As for pilots, presumably the ones with ships had something better to do than be "climbing the walls down here". It's fairly typical for a military operation to have more pilots than craft in any case, so that's not an issue. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:47, 4 December 2005 (EST)

Well if there was another squadron of MVII's available at the time Starbuck mentions the 20 odd pilots in the ready room, where is that second squadron? If they are sortied after Ripper's mission, they would have been destroyed by the virus. If they're in the tubes waiting for a mission, why didn't they sortie to defend the ship?

This second squadron is never seen onscreen or mentioned in dialogue in the miniseries. It's more likely it didn't exist and the later MKVII's are refugees. Those vipers are at least seen on screen once, and later in the series its mentioned that there are some pilots from other battlestars flying off Galactica. (Crashdown is described as a refugee from "Triton", for example.)

:Crashdown was a Raptor pilot; Raptors have FTL and could go to another system, but I don't think Vipers could easily escape to Ragnar that well (unless, like Apollo, they landed on a nearby Civilian ship with Jump engines then escaped aboard that, but that seems unlikely).--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:50, 7 December 2005 (EST)
::Didn't Doral say during the flyby at the museum that it was performed by the last Galactica squadron. Since this was the squadron led by Ripper, it pretty much precludes a second squadron. Also, there could have been several Mk VIIs in storage, for spares or down for repairs. Maybe there were extra Mk IIs stored in the starboard hanger. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:57, 7 December 2005 (EST)
:::It is likely that they were unservicable and awaited transfer to a dock after ''Galactica'' was officially decomissioned. Also, on the off chance that I might be right, there may have been Vipers on other ships that survived as well. (For instance, there may have been a few were stragglers from earlier engagements, or even patrols that didn't see action during the assault on the Colonies that happened upon Roslin's fleet prior to Ragnar.) Just a thought or three... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::It would be informative to get an actual headcount during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage. I have the launch scene about 2/3 analyzed, and will probably be able to finish it next week, but the video quality of my recording isn't perfect. I'll let you know what I come up with, in any case. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:33, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::::Oh, one more thing - In the mini, Adama says "I seem to remember an entire squadron of fighters down in the starboard hangar deck yesterday". If there were two squadrons of Mk. IIs, he would've said so. Again, two squadrons of Mk. VIIs (one destroyed) and one squadron of Mk. IIs fits the on-screen evidence nicely. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:48, 8 December 2005 (EST)

::::The only problem with that is that the second squadron doesn't seem to show up until the battle at Ragnor. What was it doing all this time? If the count of MKVII's is under 20, it makes sense that the MKVII's at Ragnor were made up of a small group of spares that were put together onboard Galactica along with whatever refugees were picked up by Roslin's fleet. We know for sure that there were at least three MKVII's with that fleet that were shown onscreen.--Dallan007
:::::Didn't Starbuck's lines in that scene imply that there were no operational fighters. I believe it was something along the lines of "pilots you got, but Vipers..." I think the Mk VIIs they have were straglers the RTFF picked up before they jumped to Ragnar. These could have been on patrol or something and met up with Colonial One et al. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 00:03, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::Maybe the Mk. VII wing wasn't sortied before Ragnar because the systems had to be stripped of Baltar's CNP. There are far too many Mk. VIIs in the Ragnar battle to be anything less than a full wing, though. I'll have a real tally up as soon as I can. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:38, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::They didn't know about the CNP weakness yet. The purging didn't happen until they were at Ragnar, after the first sortie. Remember, it was the same time as Doral was accused of being a Cylon. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:09, 9 December 2005 (EST)
:::::::::Perhaps, before the first sortie, Gaeta had the remaining Mark VIIs grounded as a precaution since he hears of the malfunctions from Dualla before the fight and makes the association with the CNP (he's bright that way). Or, yes, the Mark VIIs were gathered up in Roslin's search (most probable since Galactica should launch everything they had in sortie 1, and they would rather send Mark VII's than the museum pieces). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:10, 9 December 2005 (EST)
::::::::::The squadron ready room would seem to imply a 20-ship squadron. There are 24 seats in the ready room, 20 pilots plus a few seats for guests like Apollo. Boomer and Helo were flying with the last Mk VII squadron so it would make sense that they would be there in the mini. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 12:27, 13 December 2005 (EST)

== Redundancy ==
=== Fleet Details ===

'''Designation''': warship, battlestar type, [[Galactica type battlestar|original battlestar class]] (class name unknown).

'''Deployment''': Formerly an element of the [[75th Battlestar Group]] (BSG 75)

'''Current Status''': One of [[Pegasus (RDM) |two]] remaining Colonial military units. ''Galactica'' is commanded by [[William Adama]].

=== Fleet Details Comments ===
The only piece of information in that block which is not mentioned before it is the membership is BSG 75; this was an oversight. I'll add mention of it in the paragraph before. The remainder is redundant and shockingly poor in formatting. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
:Since you've been around and not commented, Merovingian, I'll pull it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:26, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::I was busy. It's not redundant, and I am restoring it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:46, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::What information does it contain that is not elsewhere in this article? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 13:55, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Boxes provide quick and easy referrence. I mean, we wouldn't have a box listing ship class and armaments by that logic. It's fun, and makes it clearer. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:24, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::That's not a box. The info box made for the purpose does mention the designation and CO. The BSG 75 thing is at best a curiosity utterly unworthy of quick reference, not that I agree that randomly ordered sentence fragments are actually easier to skim. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 14:36, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Seemed pretty redundant to me. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:57, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
I still want to delete this. It taunts me in my dreams ...well, not quite, but I don't like it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 22:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

===Turrets===
[[Image:BSG-KEW-Turret.jpg|thumb|An example of one of ''Galactica's'' large projectile weapons.]]
''Galactica's'' defenses include an array of twenty-four large turret mounted, dual-role twin-cannons, and a multitude of smaller turret mounted twin-guns located between the ''Galactica's'' "[[Frame|ribs]]", along the [[flight pod]]s. Together, these provide the ''Galactica'' with a flak field that acts as a defense perimeter against incoming hostiles ([[Miniseries]], "[[Scattered]]"). In addition, the large cannons represent ''Galactica's'' main anti-capital ship weapon, and have been shown to be quite effective against targets like [[Basestar]]s ("[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]").
=== Turrets Comments ===
I don't mind the picture, though I don't think it adds much. It could be tied to the page simply as an illustration of "Armament" per the title of the larger section.
The composition of the turret armament is discussed on the page for the type. The details on the positioning are slightly incorrect, anyway. That they produce flak is obvious; that the large guns are effective against basestars could be assumed, and, if it must be mentioned, should be mentioned on the page for the type. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:09, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:Agree. [[Galactica type battlestar]] should host details relevant to the ship class in general. [[Galactica (RDM)]] should host information only pertinent to the individual battlestar in question. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:46, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

==Battlestar Group==
See [[talk:Pegasus (RDM)#Battlestar Group|talk on Pegasus page]]

==Improvements for featured article status==
I think that we should make the following minor changes before declaring this a featured article:
*Remove "Fleet Details" section, as this merely duplicates information available in the ship infobox
*Reconsider the implementation of the "running tallies" section. My objection is mainly based on the fact that the current setup precludes the use of footnotes in this article, and is probably more information than the average user is interested in. I personally feel that we should break each tally into a separate article and link it from the appropriate summary in the equipment section.
*If, however, we decide keep the running tallies on this page, a simple retitle of the section to "Sources and Rationalle" is necessary. Also, we should seriously consider moving over to the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag system, although doing so may make the editing process more cumbersome (with the running tallies scattered throughout the body of the text). --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
:<strike>Item 1</strike>
:As for #2 (a or b)... I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does seem to overwhelm the bottom, and any other footnootes would get drowned out. I guess I'd lean towards them becoming subarticles (of either Galactica (RDM) or of their respective topic (Viper (RDM), Raptor, etc)), or maybe to the front of their respective topics (on the main of Viper (RDM) and Raptor). I'll defer to others on this one, though. Also... could the article stand to have perhaps one more external shot of ''Galactica''? For an article about her, she doesn't get much visibility (outside the small shot in the data box and the gallery down below). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:21, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

::I agree with SteelViper on #2: if you just move it to another article, but keep a link to the tallies section at the bottom, I have no strong feelings on such a change. (BTW, what do you mean "Rationalle"?). --->However, I have to disagree on "Fleet details": I agree that saying its "designation" and "current status" is already in the box, however, the box doesn't mention what Battlestar Group it (nor does this justify changing the box template, because only this article and Pegasus would have such info): I'm going to change it back to a compromise position and tell me what you think. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
:::On second thought, nevermind: it already says enough about BSG info in the introductory paragraph. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:06, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
::::That's the EXACT same progression I went through. "Hey, that isn't in the... oh. There it is." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:07, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I've tried breaking out the Raptor and Viper tallies into their own articles. Let me know what you think; it's easy to revert if people don't like it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

:I didn't see anything wrong with the breakout; I was severely dismayed by the self-argumentative tone in one section of the article (now revised). I've also made significant concision and adjustments as well as adding more links to material that should give the article more ''ooompf''. I may review this again as I'm sure more things here just didn't sit right with me. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:27, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

What's left todo on this before "FA" status? Also... any thoughts on my picture thought above? (Another external shot of "Big G" somewhere else on this page?) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:32, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:External shots should be of ''Galactica'' doing something recognizably "Galactica-ish", to contrast with the beauty shots in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:38, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:Agreed. I've also gone through the article again and given the language more polish and super-conventionized it. I'm happy with the text, but fresh photos of the Big G moving about would be neat. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:54, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::Looking through the "screenshots" category, I wasn't impressed by the selection. I hit Galacticastation for some examples and looked at the mini since I figured they'd feature her prominently there. I found [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(258).htm top view], [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(290).htm side viper], and [http://www.galacticastation.com/Galactica%20Station/Screencaps/mini/001%20(572).htm side Fleet]. Of the three, "side Fleet" is my favorite, but that's a fairly small sample. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::They're all pretty nice. We could sprinkle them throughout the article for flavor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:15, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::I would love to see "side Fleet" on the pictureless [[The Fleet (RDM)]] article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:33, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::Should I go ahead and upload the Galacticastation versions (576x320), or should we have one of our resident screen capture artists grab something higher quality (DVD or High-def)? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::Upload the ones you've got, and put a notice on [[Battlestar Wiki:Requested Images|Requested Images]] for higher quality versions. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:20, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

::::::Internal links to:
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal top.jpg|top view]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini gal side viper.jpg|side viper]]
::::::[[:Image:Mini side fleet.jpg|side fleet]]
::::::They're prepped and ready to be added to the gumbo that is the wiki (though they could probably use better tagging, but being from Galacticastation I'm not sure of the original signal source). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:53, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
:::::::Side viper and top view added. I added them as non-thumbnails in an effort for them to be less intrusive. I left out "side fleet" as that got added to [[the Fleet (RDM)]], but it could be added if somebody wants to make room. We should be careful not to overdo it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

:::::::: I changed them to thumbs because I think it looks cleaner having a clear delineation between text and image. Revert if you wish and we can talk about it. I also added some kind of place-holder captions, which might be improved upon by someone who has a clearer idea of the purpose of the images are (other than look: a space boat). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:55, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

I added appropriate captions to the thumbs. I'm normally a non-thumb guy as I think we overuse it for pictures where the context is already present and so further captioning is unnecessary, nor do I see the bordering as needed. However, the thumbs here don't detract, so there you go. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:13, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
:So is this good to go for "FA"? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:25, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
::I think the article's come a long way; yes, I believe it's ready. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:32, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
What do you guys think of the orthos I added to the bottom. (Thanks Mercifull, I forgot to add back in the bottom one.) --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 17:30, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

:That Starship Modeler booger on the 2nd image annoys me since it wasn't their image in the first place. I'd rather get rid of it or get a clean one (it appears to be merely cropped from the first, anyway). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:13, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

== Starboard flight pod ==

[[Image:Starboard_pod.jpg|thumb|''Galactica's'' starboard pod ([[Maelstrom]]).]]
That sure as hell looked like the starboard flight pod during the Adama Maneuver. Anyone agree? --[[User:Kevin W.|Kevin W.]] 18:14, 11 November 2006 (CST)
* Not only that, I'm pretty sure I heard a reference in A Measure of Salvation to a landing in the starboard pod. Fair to say it's back in service? [[User:Mr. Random|Mr. Random]] 14:57, 14 November 2006 (CST)
**The launch tubes might be in operation, but the bays are apparently still encased, as seen in a sweeping shot in Maelstrom.--[[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 02:57, 12 January 2008 (CST)
***But Raptors cannot use the launch tubes. Actually although the front of the flightpod is closed, the back has been fully opened up (although there are very few shots of it). By the Episode No Exit the front can be seen as fully open in one new shot of the ship. [[User:VARGR|VARGR]] 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Missile tubes ==

I think we should include the missile tubes along with Galactica's other weapon systems. When Adama ordered the Galactica to prepare for the ground strike, he had them load tubes 4 through 10, which means there are at least 10 missile tubes. However the effect shot seemed to show (at least to my current recollection) 2 rows of missile tubes, one of which had every door open but one, which would mean Galactica has 14 tubes, at least. She may have more on the other side of the ship (were the tubes mounted on the top of the hull or the bottom? I couldn't tell.) [[User:Gutter Monkey|Gutter Monkey]] 20:55, 16 December 2006 (CST)

:Top of the ship, and I think it was 12 tubes not 14. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 22:49, 16 December 2006 (CST)

::Yep, definitely twelve tubes; two rows of six. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 03:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)

:::Good, my eyes aren't failing me (Yet). --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 13:07, 17 December 2006 (CST)

== Nuclear warhead yield ==

The author of the nuke section considers that by the size of the missiles, their yield could go from 5 to 150 kilotons. Yet, if the missiles are particularly huge, such a low yield is illogical. Not even modern nukes would easily fit in decent compact casings and be capable of delivering many hundreds of kilotons, but if those missile tubes are supposedly large, so would the missiles, and cramming multi-megaton warheads into them would be a cinch. --[[User:Mister Oragahn|Mister Oragahn]] 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

== Armor plating ==

If I recall, the ribs on ''Galactica's'' hull were supposedly covered with armor plating originally. Which would imply that at the time of the First Cylon War it was in place. However, in the first Razor flashback, there was no armor plating, even though the ship was fairly new at the time. Just an oversight maybe, any thoughts? --[[User:Maserati1945|Maserati1945]] 22:07, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

: Firstly, this has been floating around the fandom for sometime now. I don't know why, because there's nothing official to back it up; the only things that we know got changed on the Big G were the starboard landing bay for it to become a museum. Actually, as so far as we've been able to tell, the ribs are actually part of the design. This seems to be backed up by [[Lee Stringer]], who worked in the Miniseries. [http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=180&t=8278 From a post he made on MediaBlvd], "In regards to the ribs, I believe that the ribs were always part of the design. In my opinion, they are a defense feature that would protect the Galactica from any incoming missiles unless they approached it from a perpendicular trajectory. Any angular deviation from 90 degrees would have the missile impact the ribs and not the hull underneath."
: Also, I believe the hull armor removal claim was later refuted as well... I just haven't been able to dig that up yet either.
: Either way, the visible ribbing makes wonderful sense, as you don't need a smooth hull in space for the fact that you don't have any atmospheric drag to worry about. -- [[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''] 22:46, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
::I think it comes from the fact that there are some areas on the hull with seemingly incomplete plating. The armor there is, is very irregular. Sometimes it's just a very small slab of metal that seems to have no function, thus appearing incomplete. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 01:34, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

In season 4 the idea that Galactica is not armored is put to rest when we see that she has an inner hull as well as an outer hull; the very nature of an outer hull in that of armor. With this in mind, the ribbing and the top platting is a second and third layer of armor. Though unconfirmed in the series, the idea of the ribbing may be related to real-life Explosive reactive armor used on tanks; the top plating obviously is additional protection over vital areas. --ViperMkII 14.40 21 May 2010

== Cargo ==

Is it just me, or do the crates and boxes in Galactica's corridors seem to increase in number over time? In the miniseries, there are nearly none, and by Season 3 they seem to be everywhere. Why exactly would this happen? --[[User:Isidis|Isidis]] 14:38, 11 November 2007 (CST)
: I imagine ''Pegasus'' had something to do with that. Also, ''Galactica'' had to house families after [[New Caprica]], so they might have moved stuff around in order to set up living space. -- [[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''] 14:45, 11 November 2007 (CST)
::I agree. It is probable that things have been moved out of storage rooms to provide bunking space for a ship that not only has the bulk of ''Pegasus'''s old crew, but some VIP civilians, the remainder housed in [[Camp Oil Slick]] as a result of the destruction of ''[[Cloud 9]]'' and several ship's worth of crowded space. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Talk:Mercury class battlestar/Archive 1

2010-05-21T19:19:13Z

ViperMkII: /* Armaments */

==Class Name==

So was this actually mentioned in the episode, or is it officially heresay? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:01, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

RDM officially christens Pegasus a Mercury-class vessel in the blog for the episode. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:29, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

In a deleted scene from "Pegasus," Adama makes an oblique reference to the Pegasus being a Mercury Class during a conversation with Cain in her quarters ("it's been awhile since i've been on a Mercury-class") --[[User:Griffin-2-6|Griffin-2-6]] 19:06, 30 July 2009 (GMT)

==Specs==

Tomorow ill add to this for basic specs.
(ill have to borrow the [[Battlestar]] page for a template.
ill start one the template in notepad here however.
when i put it up, please be gentle :)

oh and ill add in a section for fan-fiction if you want..
--[[User:Alex mcpherson|Alex mcpherson]] 12:24, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

:No fan fiction, please. Sourced comments from Zoic (the effects guys) would be useful, and if you think you can count the armament emplacements yourself, that would be fine (although I don't think that's possible given the shots we see in "Pegasus"), but unfounded guesses don't belong here. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:42, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

Ok.
and no i wasnt going to count the guns. and also i was just going to give a fair idea. and im glad i asked about fan fiction first ;)
cheers for your advice.
--[[User:Alex mcpherson|Alex mcpherson]] 12:45, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

:erm, could you post places i can go for sources , ill look on [[zoic]] but i dont know any others, i dont even know where RDM's blog is. (-embarrased-). I am quite new here, though. --[[User:Alex mcpherson|Alex mcpherson]] 13:16, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

::*[http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/ Ron Moore's Blog]
::*[http://scifi.com/battlestar/bts/videoblog/ David Eicke's video blog]
::*[http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/downloads/podcast/ Episode Podcasts] --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:55, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

== My Part.. ==

What do you think?
When changing part of it, please post here what your changing and to what so i know, as i have well, bad memory for details after reading new ones lol.
but seriously, what do you think?
--[[User:Alex mcpherson|Alex mcpherson]] 13:59, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

:It would be nice to have an article here summarizing what is known, but I think it's lengthy and too heavy on speculation at the moment. I will try to slim it down to a more manageable size soon. I would point out that in my opinion, [[Battlestar]] is one of our worst articles, not not a good one to emulate here. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:55, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

== Age of class==
Would it be fair to say that the Mercury class is at least 12 years old, since Tyrol claimed to have served onboard battlestars such as the Atlantia, the Columbia and the Pegasus since he was 18? It could be that one or more of the ships he mentioned was still the Cylon War-1 battlestar, but considering that there were 120 battlestars by the time of Cylon War-2, and if Galactica was to be the last of her class, it'd seem likely that the Mercury class has been around for over a decade. --[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 20:16, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

:Not a safe assumption. There could easily have been intervening ship classes between the original style and mercury class, and we don't know which order Tyrol served on each of those ships. On top of that, we don't even know Tyrol's current age - since the series doesn't take place in real time, it can't be the same as his actor. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:39, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

==Armaments ==

The Pegasus appeared to have weapons similar to those of the Galactica's main batteries mounted along side the ship on the flight pods, in a fashion very much like the battlestars of TOS. You can see the mounts swinging into action as the Pegasus alert fighters were launching against Galactica. --[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 20:16, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

:My guess is that Pegasus' flight-pod armaments are larger versions of Galactica's point defense turrets, since Galactica also has them mounted along her flight pods. Until we see them fire anything it's not really worth speculating about. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:39, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

::I posted this to [[Talk:KEW]] as well, but you appear to be correct - the flight-pod guns on Pegasus are of the same external configuration as the main batteries of Galactica. I will be intruiged to see them in action. --[[User:Peter Farago|Farago]] 21:59, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
:::There are four on the forward edge of the ship and at least 6 more on each side of the forward section of the ship. These are visible on the hi-res screenshots (.tga format) [http://client.zoicstudios.com/HYPE_pr/BSG_VFXpro_Images/ here]. They are some huge but seriously sweet pictures. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:18, 14 December 2005 (EST)
::::And two more on the front of each flight pod. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:19, 14 December 2005 (EST)
:::::Great images, thanks for posting the link. --[[User:MASON|Mason]] 15:19, 14 December 2005 (EST)
::::::from all the images that I've seen, there are 4 very large fixed bow mounted guns, and 4 turreted guns above them. there are a further 8 turrets on the alligator head (4 on each side in groups of 2). then there are the flight pods:3 turrets mounted in conjunction with the viper launch tubes, and 2 on the front and back of each pod. this adds up to a total of 30 twin guns: 4 fixed, and 26 turreted, if I'm not mistaken. here is a reasonable link to a few images: [http://wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com/BSG_GNS.html] feel free to edit the page with the new stats once you are comfortable with my new info.

How many guns does a ''Mercury''-class battlestar have?The article states that there are several, but no exact number is given. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 03:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:We don't know, which is why it isn't listed. Some people probably tried to count them, but there are so many - and only different and incomplete views - that such visual cues aren't really reliable or definite. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no on screen evidence that the Mercury class has the point defense guns that are seen on the Galactica/Columbia class.

== High Res pics of Pegasus added ==

Added two high-res pics of Pegasus. The pics are very nice.

==Pegasus "Appearances"==

Pegasus was not in [[Resistance]], however, Chief Tyrol mentioned that he served aboard her. --[[User:MASON|Mason]] 07:48, 15 December 2005 (EST)

== Final Pegasus Hi-Res Upload ==

Just uploaded three more High-Res Zoic screen-caps. These five are all the Hi-Res Pegasus images that have been released to date. Have another render from Zoic, but don't know if I should post it here since it was originally posted on the PlanetX65 site. It does have credit info on the image, but it also has the PlanetX64 logo on it. --[[User:KRONOS|Kronos]] 04:32, 09 March 2006 (EST)

== Designer? ==

What member of the production team designed ''Pegasus''? (Mercury-class Battlestar) I know it wasn't Eric Chu, who designed Galactica.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 19:04, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

:This is SOLELY based on my podcast transcribing (no other source) but from [[Podcast:The Captain's Hand]] RDM said:
:"Okay, there they go. Upside-down into the lower bay of Pegasus, which is something that I had been pressing to do for a long time. I- from the get-go when Gary was first designing the Pegasus with flight decks I said, "Let's do one of the flight decks upside-down." He said, "Why?" I said, "'Cause it'll be cool!"

:By Gary I assume he means [[Gary Hutzel]]. Maybe that was just the one design element, but it came to mind when you asked. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:54, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

==Auto Landings==

Do we know for definite that the Mercury Class Battlestars/Pegasus still use Auto Landing Systems? --[[User:Fordsierra4x4|Fordsierra4x4]] 08:41, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

:Nothing I know of in aired content discusses this directly since the miniseries. However, based on content from [[Act of Contrition]] and [[Final Cut]], it would seem that using autolanding computers are still not used and would be a quick way of getting hacked by a Cylon. It would follow that ''Pegasus'' would have her autolanding features off, but again nothing's been aired about it. When ''Pegasus'' got ambushed in [[The Captain's Hand]] it would follow that she couldn't have such features running (nor would they be useful, preferring to go with combat landings). I would suggest we note that it's likely that her autolanding features are off in light of the Cylon attacks based on their previous and current behavior. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:56, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

==Role==

I've changed the "role" to that of [[Wikipedia:Battlecarrier|battlecarrier]]. Seems to make more sense. --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 15:35, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

:See my comment about this in [[Galactica type battlestar]]. I think this term dilutes what these ships are. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:45, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

== Dimensions ==

I don't think [[:Image:Mercury_class_battlestar_blueprint_dimension.jpg|this]] is a proper source for the dimensions. The image isn't credited either, and in case looks fan-produced. It might fall under [[Fan fiction]]. There is no further explanation for how those numbers were reached. Maybe it's image analysis, but those aren't really reliable either. I can see adding ''rough'' numbers so people can get an impression of the size, but there isn't much point in narrowing them down to a single foot. Granted, we do something similar on [[Galactica type battlestar]], but at least one footnote there mentions Zoic, which seems more official. Personally I don't care for that one either. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:18, 8 November 2007 (CST)