Talk:Valkyrie/Archive 1

Before anyone asks, here is the source: http://pics.livejournal.com/drewcypher/pic/000pbh0a/g261
See the seal in the background --Serenity 16:59, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Good Job Serenity!--Straycat0 18:38, 31 October 2006 (CST)

I didn't create the article though :p --Serenity 18:42, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Yeah, but you spotted the name on the seal. Well, whoever spotted it first, good job!--Straycat0 18:44, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Anyone else notice Tigh?--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:47, 31 October 2006 (CST)

You mean the eye? This is probably flashback scene. -- Spike 18:50, 31 October 2006 (CST)

With Admiral pips?Shane ^{(T - C - E)}18:52, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The description below says "Commander William Adama", as opposed to the next photo. -- Spike 18:56, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The rank differences clearly IDs the photo spot as a flashback. Look at the pips on the collar! What are the left collar pips verses the rank pips on the right? (Right-Left relative to the wearer) This is especially noticable on the Admiral Corman shot. --Straycat0 19:02, 31 October 2006 (CST)

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

Another question, in 8 of 9 shot on that webpage, I am guessing its a flashback scene because Lee is wearing Captain's pips, but he also has a Battlestar Galactica badge on his shoulder. I thought he wasn't assigned to the Galactica prior to the miniseries? Is that the implication here or a clothing manfunction? hehe...--Straycat0 19:26, 31 October 2006 (CST)

I read something that he might be demoted back to Captain. Not sure about it, but it makes sense. I guess they could keep him as Major or even Colonel, but there isn't really a job opening for a Commander at the moment.

But looking at it more closely that might even be Major. Major and Captain look very similar, with Major having three chevron, the top one of which is directly on the diamond's edge --Serenity 19:28, 31 October 2006 (CST)

The original CAG of Galactica that we see was a Major. Also, in the Miniseries, Apollo didn't wear a unit patch at all on his shoulder when he got to Galactica, pehaps since he was in the Reserves. --Talos 14:21, 3 November 2006 (EST)

In "Torn", the name plate on Lee's viper reads "Maj. Lee Adama". So I don't think he will be demoted any time soon. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:54, 10 November 2006 (CST)

I've deleted this line "both William Adama and Saul Tigh served on the Valkyrie" this is not canon, also many rumors going around are that Adama was involved in a covert operations against the cylons so he might have simply gone to the Valkyrie to be issued orders or debriefed etc, point is, we don't know. --lordmutt 19:13, 10 November 2006 (EST)

There is a two-minute video out there, that pretty much confirms that Adama and Tigh were sent to Valkyrie for a special mission. Something about using a stealth ship to make a reconnaissance flight into Cylon space. The ship was flown by Novacek who was then captured by the Cylons. I also like that this shoots down the silly theories that the Blackbird was the Colonial's first stealth ship. --Serenity 10:52, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Concur. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:55, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Wait, wait, wait! In the episode, they showed a picture of the bridge crew of the Valkyrie that included Adama and Tigh. If they were simply assigned there for a single mission (and a covert one at that) they're not going to commemorate the occasion! Secondly, they wouldn't have assigned Tigh as well. The fewer people that knew about the mission, the better, plus there would be no reason to send another ship's XO. The Valkyrie is also described as Adama's last command before Galactica, which means that he was the commander of the ship, not an officer briefly assigned for a single mission. And why do you even have to ask if its a flashback? C'mon, people, its pretty obvious that it was!--Sci-fi Junkee

Erm, note the date of this discussion. This was speculation before the episode aired. --Serenity 12:27, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Class / Type / Dimensions[edit]

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

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

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

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

I disagree with that. A smaller ship is going to have less physical space to carry fighter craft and supplies. If Valkyrie is smaller than Galactica and Pegasus, then its gun batteries are smaller, which means they're firing lighter shells, which translates into less penetration, smaller warheads, less damage. A smaller ship has less volume to absorb damage with, meaning less staying power in a battle.

That doesn't mean it can't still be a prestigious command, though. If it were a very new ship, even if it weren't the most powerful, it would still be a plum assignment.--Grin Reaper 07:08, 18 November 2006 (CST)

That's not always completely true. For example, the modern Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer is about 500 feet long. It's replaced the 560 foot long Spruance and Kidd class destroyers and is also much more powerful than the old Long Beach (721 fl) and other old cruisers. It's almost as powerful as the other current surface warship, the Ticonderoga class cruiser, built on a Spruance hull. The only reason our modern carriers are so much larger than the old WWII bird farms, is that the planes are much larger now than they were back then. For instance, the lightweight F/A-18E Super Hornet is about 30,000lbs empty and 60 feet long. The old F6F Hellcat is 42 feet long and weighs under 10,000lbs. In conclusion, Valkryie, even smaller, could be much more powerful than the older Galactica. --Talos 09:09, 18 November 2006 (CST)

But considering the timeframe, they aren't using radically different weapons and planes. Probably standard Mk VII Vipers or maybe MkVIs or whatever.

I think it's sort of like the escort carriers of WWII. Not usually meant to operate alone, but to give support to larger carriers, protect ships and support planetary operations. A support ship in Battlestar Groups that have a fullsized battlestar as main ship --Serenity 09:24, 18 November 2006 (CST)

That reminds me of a point I forgot, the Mk II and Mk VII are of similar sizes, they can be launched from the same tubes and stored in the same parking spots on the hanger deck. I'm thinking the Valkyrie is like the USS Wasp which was a miniture Yorktown, a small light carrier that can operate with the fleet carriers. The only difference is that the Valkryie would be more advanced than Galactica, instead of old and ineffective like the Wasp. --Talos 09:38, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I find myself nodding in gleeful agreement to Talos and Serenity's comments, but I must reply to Grin Reaper's first — you're using the "bigger is better" mentality, and this is one of the two issues that burns at the heart of the fight amongst Star Wars fans on the topic of warships (and classification thereof, but I'll mention that later). Bigger is not better. Better is better. Different is better. Just because Valkyrie is smaller (hypothetically speaking for the sake of example) doesn't mean she carries smaller weapons. From the recollection scenes alone, we can see that she has weaponry different, and in different locations, than Galactica. The elder battlestar lumps her primary "turrets" dorsalside and ventralside, and has her "flak-guns" lining the midline and flight pods. Valkyrie, by contrast, had turrets on the pods themselves, akin to Pegasus. I don't want to chase specifics, but focus on the point that differences are good — they're human; they're to be expected; they're in realistic keeping.

It could be said that, perhaps, Valkyrie was as Talos and Serenity say, a lighter, more purposeful version of a battlestar for an accompaniment or specialized role. Less mass would mean that she'd require less engines in her array, and perhaps have greater velocities/accelerations. She'd require less crew. While still operating the same craft as any other battlestar, she might have less of them. Who knows? The point is, she's different, but still a battlestar.

I bring in two examples from history: the case of the HMS Hood (ca. 1940) and the battleships of the US Navy during WWII. In Hood's story, she was, when WWII rolled around, the largest, longest warship in the British Navy, and was 262m long at 48,000 tonnes full load. By contrast, the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships were 197m at 33,000 tonnes. Both ships carried the same 15-in gun. Then, we throw in another WWII-era battleship, the King George V-class, which was 227m at 42,000 tonnes — but sported 14-in guns because the Admiralty, at the time, felt that a more quantitive broadside (10 over 8 or 9) would be more effective than the larger 15-in guns. I'm not going to get into a running argument over details, but bring this up to point out that all three were battleships (Hood was termed a battlecruiser, but the point stands), built by the same country in roughly a short period of time (within approximately 30 years), and all were used under similar circumstances, to varying success and failure. Similarly, the United States had their "holdover" dreadnaught-style battleships at the opening of WWII, but then churned out the New Mexico-class, the South Dakota-class, North Carolina-class, and Iowa-class. Each was indeed a battleship, but definitely different in terms of size, traits, and capabilities.

Yes, I may be getting a bit long-winded for such a trivial subject, but I can't express enough how different this great series is from Star Trek and Star Wars. Until proven otherwise, there aren't any carriers, battleships, cruisers, frigates, destroyers, corvettes, torpedo boats, etc. — there are battlestars, and a battlestar is a battlestar is a battlestar, albeit in different shapes, forms, and sizes. -- Hawke 11:26, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I'm thinking that it's just a smaller battlestar, fulfilling a similar role as the Mercuries and such on smaller displacement. Many realword navies are always attempting to do this. For example, before the Burke was finalized, various lightweight versions, sacrificing engines or Aegis, or other equipment, were designed. All of them tried to mimize displacement.The Treaty-era ships from the 1920-30's aren't the best examples to use here because they had an artificial limit imposed on them by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Frequently, improved technology requires lesser manpower. The reason ships keep getting bigger historically is that they keep adding new technology, for instance, the cause of the massive destroyer size increase after WWII is mostly due to the inclusion of Weapon Alfa, guided missiles, and a huge increase in carried electronics. --Talos 12:27, 18 November 2006 (CST)

OK, let's not make too big a deal about the size. Here's a comparison of sizes of post-WWII aircraft carrier classess that I put together from wikipedia.org organized by when they were built:

CVL-48 Saipan class - 2 ships 14,500 tons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawke, I don't understand where you're coming from. I never said Valkyrie wasn't a battlestar. I said that if it's smaller than Galactica, then it cannot be as capable. It cannot carry the same amount of fighters because its flight pods are smaller. Its guns cannot be as large, and we know thanks to Pegasus that guns like the ones Galactica carries are still effective weapons. It will not be able to absorb as much damage due to its smaller size. I'm honestly not sure what most of your post has to do with any of that.--Grin Reaper 08:26, 19 November 2006 (CST)

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

My thought are that we could gage the scale of the Valkyrie to the Galactica and Pegasus by looking at the flightpods. The width of the "mouth" should be the same as they all support and operate the vehicles - Vipers, Raptors and shuttles. Oh and the Shadow Star, can't forget that new one. The "banner" on the deck of each flightpod could be the same dimensions for landing purposes. As for the guns, I saw the one in the "eye" of the Valkyrie, one behind it on the "body" and three on the flightpod like that of the Pegasus. Most seemed to have only one cannon, while the that's in the "eye" appeared, in the firing sequence, to have two cannon. Cannon that fired a powered missle. The Galactica and Pegasus appeared, to me, to have the same type of main gun. The placement was not the same though. I'v been also thinking of the Galactica as being like a World War 2 carrier, since it had "AA guns" but uprated for modern operation. The Pegasus was a product of more modern times and doesn't appear to have any "AA guns". Due to the guns on the Valkyrie, I'd guess that it was perhaps the most modern design. Those main guns could be a newer design then those on Pegasus, unless they are a new "caliber". In the long run, I have to agree that it appears to be smaller and serve a slightly different purpose in the BSG, maybe a battlescruiser type to the battleship type that Galactica and Pegasus play. I can't but also say that perhaps, these ships could be treated as ships-of-the-line as in the age of sail. Interesting design, pity we'll never get to see more of it, unless Zoic is kind and releases some orthos of it. Or maybe some book comes out with orthos of all the Colonial ships and craft. Cat-Scratched-Victim 22:08, 18 November 2006 (CST)

I found some screencaps and came up with these numbers (assuming symmetry, which I thought reasonable, given other Colonial designs):

1 x heavy gun turret in an alcove on either side of the head

1 x Heavy gun turret in an alcove on either side of the main body, above the flight pods.

3 x more alcoves on either side of the main body that may or may not contain heavy gun turrets; There weren't any shots close enough for me to be certain.

1 x heavy gun turret on either side of the dorsal crest.

2 x possible heavy gun turrets aft of the dorsal crest. The image was from too far awawy to be sure, but they look quite similar to the ones astride the crest.

2 x heavy gun turrets on the dorsal surface of the flight-pods, one foreward and one aft.

3 x light gun turrets in alcoves on the side of each flight-pod. There were only three in-frame in the picture I saw them in, but it also only covered the foreward part of the flight pod, so there could be more.

Having no images of the ship's underside, there's no way to tell what armament she has there.

As far as I could tell, all the heavy gun turrets had two barrels. The lighter gun turrets are harder to make out, but they appear to be twin-barreled emplacements as well. They are definately smaller than the heavy turrets, though.

As for the armaments of Pegasus and Galactica, the heavy turrets on both are indeed extremely similar in appearance. Both possess extensive flak suites of lighter, rapid-fire guns. Although I've been unable to visually identify any of the emplacements on Pegasus, I've certainly seen them firing.

The way I see it, Valkyrie is a much smaller design, fitted with commensurately smaller weaponry, meant to support the heavier ships in a BSG like the Mercury-class. More of a cruiser to their battleship, than a battlecruiser.--Grin Reaper 08:26, 19 November 2006 (CST)

I kinda thought Valkyrie was a smaller battlestar, much like the Independence class light carriers of World War II or the support carriers (CVS) that the WW II era Essex class ships became. Essentially these ships were designed to undertake missions that didn't warrant the use of a big carrier. The CVL Independence, for example, was one of the first carriers deployed for night operations. Essex and her sisters were used for antisubmarine and amphibious operations. If Valkyrie were a ship of this type it would make more sense for her to be assigned a black op, since arguably she would be a somewhat less threatening presence than a full sized battlestar, and she would also be more expendable if something went wrong. I propose the term "Light Battlestar" to describe this ship. :) Dallan007 20:44, 20 November 2006 (CST)

I think Valkyrie is an intermediate design somewhere between Galactica and Pegasus. As far as size goes, I think its comparable in dimensions to Galactica, and therefore slightly smaller than Pegasus. If you use the width and length of the flight pods as a scale, then Valkyrie is very similar to the other battlestars we've seen. The perception of small size I think is due to the narrower engine pods and propulsion section in the rear. Galactica has the addtional four engines from a refit that make her rear end wider, and Pegasus had more engines to begin with. The width of the bow and the overall length of the ship is about the same for all three. Maserati1945 02:41, 23 November 2006 (CST)

It could just be Pegasus and Galactica where built for long-term combat operations and journeys where as the Valkyrie might not be designed for extended journeys, which is of course much more suitable to a covert operation. MatthewFenton 06:00, 23 November 2006 (CST)

The guns on the Valkyrie seem, to me, to be rail guns similar to those onboard the Galactica and Pegasus. These latter two have a larger "caliber" of cannon, but I think this could explain the firing of the missle and other types of ordance. Galactica and Pegasus can fire differing loads similtaniously, as opposed to Valkyrie. Now here's a question - I've noticed in some captures, what looks like the phaser emitters on the Enterprise-A, covering a number of areas of the Valkyrie. Could they be the AA guns?Cat-Scratched-Victim 18:00, 25 November 2006 (CST)

You're referring to those hemisphereical blisters on the flight-pod connector spars, and elsewhere? If so, I think we haven't got enough information. I can't make out anything that might be gunbarrels on any of them, I haven't got any detailed enough shots of them.--Grin Reaper 07:08, 28 November 2006 (CST)

I just did a quick measurement comparison to the Galactica and the Valkyrie. I compared the flightpod openings for width and found that the Vlakyrie would be roughly half as long as the Galactica IF the width is the same for all Battlestars, ie. for receiving the same types of craft (eg. Shuttles, Raptors and Vipers). Cat-Scratched-Victim 22:07, 25 November 2006 (CST)

I was just comparing the flight pods myself. I haven't had time to do anything particularly in-depth, but I looked at the landing strips relative to the width of the pods' foreward and aft openings. Galactica and Pegasus both look like they've got another landing-strip's width to either side of the actual strip, and from what I recall, the strips on both ships are about the same size compared to Vipers. Assuming the strip on Valkyrie is the same size, then an eyeball estimate looks to me like there's about half a strip's width to either side of the landing strip on Valkyrie, which would make it two thirds the width of the pods on Galactica.--Grin Reaper 07:08, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Ok my theory is that Valkyrie's main mission is patrol and if it finds something it sends a signal to a bigger ship and holds the threat off until a more powerful ship comes. Snorkel378

Okay, maybe I'm missin' something here, but where did you all get the idea that Valkyrie was smaller? We've got no real basis for comparison between the ships except the flight pods and the missile. The Missile looked about the same size compared to the Valkyrie as the missiles that Pegasus and Galactica have fired looked compared to them. And the views we have of the flight pods are so vague that there's nothing we can really assume based on them. I think that Valkyrie is roughly the same size as Pegasus or Galactica, and is most likely a newer model than Galactica, but a slightly older model than Pegasus, as it appears to have similar design features to both ships (it has the same engine setup and CIC as Pegasus, but the bow and flight pod design looks closer to Galactica-type ships).--Sci-fi Junkee

I think it's mainly the size of the gun turrets compared to the rest of the ship. If not smaller, it would have very large turrets --Serenity 11:45, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Okay. Can we maybe get some pictures, cause that would help clear this whole mess up for me.--Sci-fi Junkee

First of all, you can't measure size from the shots in "Razor". Ever hear of a little thing called "perspective"? It can be very, very deceptive, especially when you consider that we don't really know how wide a viewing angle they used on the camera when rendering, etc. That's even without accounting for scale errors in CGI production, that happened more then once during the show. Secondly, I'm not allowed to prove this statement - but I really do know what this ship looks like, how big it is, and how many engines it has. Let's just say I have access to certain materials that I'm not allowed to show or discuss where I got them. But here are some facts: 1) Those 6 tubes below the pods are the only tubes on the ship. 2) Entrances to the tubes and the profile inside them are viper - shaped. They were intended for vipers, in fact. 3) Total ship's length is just below 700m. That's right, boys and girls - it's a pocket battlestar. That's why it only has 6 launch tubes (no, they were not meant for any never designed "specialist craft", that was total nonsense). 4) It has 4 engines, not 6. Always had. If you saw the underside on the model, you'd understand. Now, like I said, I can't prove any of this because I'm not allowed to show the material that does prove it. You can choose to trust me or dismiss the above facts as ramblings of a fanboy trying to deceive the lot of you, for what purpose, I don't know. But do consider this - even at just below 700m in length, the flight pods are still big enough to service vipers. The turrets that were designed for this ship just fit the lower size in style. And finally, not every ship has to be a mile long godship to be cool. Not every class in a navy will be a juggernaut - you need support vessels, escort carriers, patrol ships, etc.

Related Images[edit]

I removed the image File:Valkyrie, Scorpion Shipyards.Jpg as when I look at the Valkyrie in the episode 'Heros' it is clear that the pics is not of a Va;kyrie typ battlestar, but is in fact a Galactica type (likely uprated) that is seen in dock at Scorpian Shipyards in 'Razor' Einar 1829 (PST), 26 March 2009

Number / Designation?[edit]

Am I seeing this right? From the capture, it looks like BSG 41 on the seal. -- Hawke 11:47, 18 November 2006 (CST)

In case you still don't know, as nobody replied, yes its 41. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:59, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Miniseries appearance?[edit]

I was watching the miniseries the other day and early in I could swear that the Valkyrie or a battlestar of the same make shows up. It's the same shot through the Caprica City doctor's window that shows the Firefly and Olympic Carrier-type ship. Is it just me or does anyone else see it? Motherfraker 16:23, 22 November 2006 (CST)

I just found a clip on youtube showing Serenity fly past and you can clearly see the mystery ship. Its certainly very large and looks like it may have 6 engines but I dont think its a battlestar. The middle section isnt big enough and the nose section is too pointy. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:01, 22 November 2006 (CST)

I've noticed this ship before, and always presumed it was a Memoryalpha:Hirogen Warship(not in BSG canon, obviously) from Star Trek. There are several instances of CG starship models from Star Trek appearing in Firefly as background ships, and as we know Serenity herself is seen in this scene, so it's possible that this vessel was put in as an "extra" to fill up space on the screen. I don't see any resemblance to the Valkyrie, but I could believe that this was a Colonial military craft of some sort.

Here's a picture of the Hirogen ship for reference: www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/hirogen-venatic-cgi.jpg --Pearse 18:57, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Mystery Ship (Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II)

I'm pretty sure that's not the Valkyrie, I think it's just a background ship because it appeared again at the end of Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II during the fleet's emergency jump as seen in the screenshot provided here. -- Kahran 20:54, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Its a pretty cool looking ship though. It looks quote powerful, definitly fast with 5 engines. We have a page about most of the ships on the wiki, could we garner enough information about this to make a page. Its quite possible it has made appearances in other episodes too and could even have an official name as there are many ships in the "mentioned only" category. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:23, 23 November 2006 (CST)

I made a rough design for a page here. What do people think? --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:53, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Looks good to me. I was going to point out the incorrect caption but it looks like you caught it.--Pearse 09:44, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Bridge.[edit]

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yeah, I meant to say CIC. Must stop watching Star Trek...--Helo87

To be fair, when taking modern day nomenclature into account, its function is closer to a bridge. That's where a ship is steered from. The CIC is where all sensor information is collected and evaluated. In BSG they throw that together, but I kinda like that they use a different term for a change. -- Serenity 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surrviving Battlestars[edit]

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Joe, how do you know ALL the other battlestars were destroyed? Grandmaester314 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, for one, "Downloaded" made it clear that the Cylon's attack was an overwhelming success. Further, RDM's made some comments in the past to that effect. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did RDM specifically say that there are definately NO other surrviving battlestars? Is it absolutely certain? I'm one of those people who still believes theres a possibility that another one may yet be found.Grandmaester314 13:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Notes on my edit[edit]

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

1) the size of the launch tubes if valk is 1200m is somthing I haddent considered before. I hope that I have provided a good posible explination and have writen it in such a way so that it didn't seem 1 sided. If you plan to rewrite it please do so in a nutral way. The desiners made some mistakes with the valk and these launch tubes were one of them. They were probably just slaped on there to make it look diffrent and the desinger desided that having 3 looked the coolest.

2) The turret argument is starting to anoy me. There is no reason that galactica style turrets could not be used on the Valk, regardless of it's size. They could easly have been scaled to match the ships size. It is clear from hero that Valks turrets work in a diffrent way thus a diffrent desinge.

3) could someone please point out these "meny desinge features that surgest a smaller scale". In my view the evidence sugests a larger ship the visual evidence in razor right down to dialog about it Being a better comand have drawn me to this conclution.

4) Altogh I realize that there are only 4 engnies I do wish there 6 and have heard meany people clame that is the case, even with this evidence. I do not think that the posibleity of extra engnies that can't be seen should be ruled out. There could be some behined the flap.

JosephK19 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

1) The designers haven't made any mistakes, it's just that the ship doesn't work on the large scale everyone seems to be attributing to it.

2) Annoying or not, the turret argument is valid. Galactica's turrets couldn't have been used because a) they're too big,

   b) they don't fit in style, and c) when scaled down they look very weird.

3) Only 6 launch tubes oriented in the same direction as the ship, that would be way too big for even raptors if the ship was over 1000m long. Redesigned turrets that fit smaller ships a lot better - which is exactly why the inhouse team designed them that way.

4) Extra engines can be ruled out, those really are flaps. I'm not allowed to prove any of the things I wrote above it so feel free to discount everything I just said if you so desire, but I've seen materials on this ship not available to the public. (No, I shouldn't even be telling you this much, and I definitely can't show those materials. Wish I could, it would end the endless discussion and wrong assumptions about the ship). It's 4 engines with flaps behind them. edit: What I can show you is a fan made model from sci-fi meshes: not sure where the author got the references to build it, but the model is reasonably accurate. Here's one pic from that thread, you can just see the flaps behind the engines. http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/3d-wips/16114-battlestar-valkyrie-51.html

1) "The designers haven't made any mistakes" I believe they have: 4 engines, this doesn't make any scene, this would make the ship 'top heavy'. to propel the ship forward the trust needs to be along the center of mass, otherwise the ship would start spinning. This mistake has been made many times in BSG, most notisably with cloud 9. Almost ironicly 6 engines would fix this problem.

The flight pods (if the ship is at the small scale of 700m). They would be a weakness not an tactical advantage. With such a small fighter wing they become impractical. having one flight deck on the underside (like the ship beside beside Pegasus in razor) would make far more sense.

2) You just used a real world explanation to support a in universe argument! a) "they're too big", thats why you resize them. b) "they don't fit the style", the ones on the Mercury class would and they are very similar. c) "when scaled down they look very weird", have a look at this : [1] this ship has Galacticas turrets on a smaller scale and they look fine.

3) "Only 6 launch tubes oriented in the same direction as the ship, that would be way too big for even raptors if the ship was over 1000m long." Thus the comment about lager spetialised ships. Also the triangle shape would be more structialy sound than ones shaped for raptors and at that size would fit

JosephK19 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that one larger pod would make more sense then two smaller ones. However you have to keep in mind that this is sci-fi, and sometimes (often, really) things aren't done so they're 100% realistic, they're done so they look good. Same argument goes for the engines number. Bottom line - I wasn't saying what was more realistic, which I always find to be a completely pointless debate when discussing sci fi ships made of non existent materials, using non existent technologies (and designed by people who aren't aerospace engineers). Therefore I won't even comment the center of mass argument. What I am saying is what the ship DOES really look like in the show, having had the opportunity to actually see it in far more detail then what was shown in razor or "Hero". And the Valkyrie there has 4 engines, is really small compared to Galactica, and has 6 forward facing launch tubes below the flight pods which are a lot smaller then Galactica's (since the entire ship is about as long as one single Galactica's pod). They've also redesigned those turrets, not just to fit the different scale, but to fit the different style of the ship. Those old howitzer style BSG turrets were meant to look old, that's why they're on a ship that's a 1st war relic. Valkyrie, being much smaller and newer, clearly called for a new turret type to be designed. Finally, I'm not sure what does that pic of the "escortstar" prove (I have to laugh at the name though - seriously, the "Anala"? Yeah the ship is ugly but to name it like that is just cruel), but I'm pretty sure it's not pertinent to this discussion. First of all, it's non canon, so it doesn't prove a thing. Secondly, it doesn't look very modern (not like the Pegasus clearly looks like a more modern battlestar then the Galactica). Thirdly, it's a 2d drawing, not a 3d model, and it's a lot harder to gauge how well the turrets fit it that way. And finally, it's hideous. If that's a "realistic" ship and the Valkyrie is full of "design mistakes", I'll take the Valkyrie any day of the week and be happy with it. I offered some Valkyrie facts because I have them and I tried to set the record straight concerning the ship. Since I'm not allowed to present material that would prove it, believe it or don't.

I never said that that was a good ship(personally I hate it. btw it is meant to be from near the end of the cylon war). it just proved that that type of gun can be scaled down. I never said that it don't believe you, in fact i'd say you have swayed me. However evidence given in the show does support the larger size (which i prefare). The large size shown in razor will have been a cgi blunder (like the oversized galactica type which could be explained as being a ship of this class: [2](it's meant to be a command version of the Galactica type) and in my own personal Battlestar world they would be a type of large Valkyrie types using advanced technology intended to compeat with the mercury class (built by a different company). When you come down to it the valk is still possibly the coolest design in the show.

p.s, could you tell me the Valks weapon count

JosephK19 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think we can finally agree no most of your points - I agree on everything except preferring the Valk bigger, I kinda think the smaller size makes it unique, different, special even. However I do agree it's one of the coolest designs there, and I'm very sorry they didn't find a way to use it more. Also, the apparently bigger scale in razor may just be a CGI blunder, it happened more then once during the course of the show. For me, she'll remain a pocket battlestar. Others can assume it's bigger and be happy with that - at least until (and if) they release official info on this ship. Since the show is over, it would be cool if they'd release a book containing all the less seen stuff in the show, this time rendered clearly an with official descriptions. Might even turn a few bucks on it - I know I'd buy it.