Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive3

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
< Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques
Revision as of 16:25, 11 August 2006 by Steelviper (talk | contribs) (new archive section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Please add new archives to Archive 04.


No HUD's in Vipers?

I've noticed that the Colonial Vipers don't seem to be equipped with any type of Heads-Up Display (HUD) or any such device. I was wondering if this was a design feature of the Vipers or if it was born simply as a way to reduce the number of VFX elements in a cockpit shot. Also, without a HUD, is there some other form of gunsight in the pilot's line of sight? --Thetruthseeker 15:55, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, if you look really hard at screenshots from "The Hand of God", etc., they do seem to have HUD's, although they haven't been prominently displayed on the show.--The Merovingian (C - E) 20:02, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
What appears to be a HUD in screencaps of "The Hand of God" seems to actually be reflection of the Viper's central display on the cockpit window. It's most evident in the first pov cockpit shot on this page, where there are several upside down DRADIS screens.[1] --Thetruthseeker 13:34, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
No HUDS in the Vipers. We haven't put gunsights in them, either. I'm not sure what the design reasons were for these decisions, but I'm guessing that it came down to VFX money that was better spent elsewhere. Our pilots simply have to be that much better. - Ngarenn 16:01, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps because a HUD would require several systems linked together via a computer, and this would be vulnerable to manipulation by the Cylons? The MkII was, after all, designed NOT to be vulnerable to this sort of attack.--Madbrood 15:01, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

FTL and the cylons

What is the range of Galactica's FTL engines? I have read some were that it is 30 light years. If this si true then it means that the fleet would have jumped around 7500 light years due to all the jumps they made in '33'. So were in the galaxy are they?

Also in the show the Cylons are divided into two types. Skin jobs and Centurions. The thing is that the Cylons say that they are better than humans but they are making the same mistake the colonies made made. I say this because Ron Moore has said that the Centurions are not sentient and so are treated as expanderble, like the first cylons were treated by the Colonies. So will we ever see the Centurions rise up against there flesh and blood counter parts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viper1982 (talk • contribs).

  • I have always speculated (pure speculation) that there is NO "range" on FTL engines in theory...but there is an "effective" range of practicality: That is, based on Admiral Cain's order for a blind jump and the way they talk more about "plotting coordinates at such a distance" (as Ragnar) than engine range, I always assumed that an FTL Jump can take you anywhere in the universe, but "it ain't like dusting crops", and if you just go without safe coordinates, you could easily wind up in a star or planet, so it's too unsafe to use. The Cylons have better computers than the Colonials, and thus are able to plot safe jumps along longer distances in their Nav computers, that's why they can jump back to Caprica relatively easily compared to the Colonials. Theoretically (This is my longstanding *assumption*, is it correct?) Galactica could Jump across the entire galaxy...it's just so unsafe without good coordinates and the odds of winding up in a star or something so big that it's deemed not worth it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:07, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I agree, there's also the question of how much fuel is invested in each FTL jump, which would also prove as a limiting factor. And if Tylium is as rare as they said it was, then they must have some form of calculating how to spend it best. --Sauron18 22:05 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Exactly. If, as we speculate in the FTL article, the propulsion is wormhole-based, then it stands to reason that to make a bigger wormhole, one would need more jucie, so to speak. It also stands to reason that the further away one's desired exit point is, the more difficult it would be to pinpoint said location. An analogy- have you ever tried to land the end of a long piece of string on a particular point? It's MUCH easier to do with a shorter piece. --Madbrood 15:12, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Sleeper Agents

I have been updating an article on the Miniseries novelization. The novelization gives a lot of extra info about Aaron Doral, making a big point that he is a sleeper agent. Was this from official sources or artistic license by the author? The main point is that his realization (unlike Boomer's) that he was a Cylon was easy. Also, if true, might imply that Brother Cavil from Galactica might be a sleeper agent? Thanks. --FrankieG 11:56, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Writing a novelization involves fleshing out much of what the original presentation only hints at. To my knowledge, the extra information was not gleaned from any of the documentation/bibles used on the series. How "official" that makes it is an open question. If we don't address it in the show, then everyone's entitled to their own theory. - Ngarenn 15:55, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Was Galactica's Brother Cavil a sleeper agent, or was it never considered or discussed? Thanks, --FrankieG 17:05, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
We discuss a lot of stuff, but if it doesn't show up on screen, it's as if it never happened. That philosophy leaves us open to more possibilities. Was Cavil a sleeper? Until we find a story where that matters, we won't define it -- and leave you wondering. Ngarenn 15:27, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Cavil definitely seemed not to be a sleeper. It's odd that Boomer appears to be the only one. There should be more, I would think. Noneofyourbusiness 19:11, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Didn't Internal-Six same "some are sleepers" in the Miniseries? --Shane (T - C - E) 19:25, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Galactica's Armor Skin

Just to clarify more than anything - and mainly so that people can stop arguing about it. Did the Galactica always have such a patchy armour skin, or before the days of decommissioning, was it more like Pegasus in terms of looks? Here's an image as an example, just in case ;) [2] --Fordsierra4x4 18:56, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

I asked Eric Chu about this on the MediaBlvd messageboards, and he said the ribs were supposed to be there, so only a missle coming from a perfect 90 degree angle would connect. Of course, I think that might have just been his opinion. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:06, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
It makes sense for there to be SOME ribs, but the ventral plating (there i go, using trek terms again...) looks....oddly laid out. As though half of it has been stripped off. Look at an image of Pegasus for comparison. I know they're different classes and all, but it just seems....wrong...somethow, for the galactica to be so oddly patchy. --Fordsierra4x4 19:09, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
To be annoyingly particular, "ventral plating" is just a phrase composed of two normal words in their normal meanings, so it is not peculiar to Star Trek. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 19:37, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Troo dat, but it sounds like it's lifted straight out of an episode of DS9 :D --Fordsierra4x4 19:45, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
(You mean dorsal plating (top); ventral plating means on the bottom). --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:11, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
It's 2:38am - not work brain! --Fordsierra4x4 20:33, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Surely the lack of armour across her entire hull hints that she did, at one time, have a full complement of armour? Perhaps the armour was being stripped off for other uses, due to the decommissioning of the ship? --Madbrood 15:04, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
This was my point, and i'd like to believe that this is the case, although i dont want to end up being a fanboy about it - just would be nice for clarification! --Fordsierra4x4 21:01, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

SkyOne Biography Canonicity

We've been debating the status of some information from SkyOne for some time now: Around the Miniseries, biographies for several main characters were posted on SkyOne's website. You can wee one at the bottom of the William Adama article, as well as for Kara Thrace, Galactica-Sharon, etc. ----->This information was taken down from SkyOne's website over a year ago. To our knowledge, BattlestarWiki is actually the only site keeping this info posted. We didn't know if it reflected Series bible things, or even if it did, if these still "counted" any more. You see I've made little notes on the bottom of each pointing out that they're not consistent with how the show turned out. For example, Galactica-Sharon's bio says she was on Galactica a different period of time, that Troy blew up recently not years ago, etc. Bits and pieces of other things are also kind of weird, and the only source for some things, i.e. Starbuck's mother's name, which honestly I don't think is official anymore. The SkyOne bios even say that Starbuck a Picon and Baltar a Sagitarron, while we had assumed both were from Caprica. --->Long story short we're debating whether to delete these from BattlestarWiki entirely, and base nothing we have on information from them, because A) The information was taken down, probably because it wasn't "right" anymore, B) It actually contradicts things from aired episodes, throwing dubious light onto their status. So we wanted to know if this information from SkyOne's website, no longer extant, is invalidated. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:48, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

Your definition of the series bible is accurate. Ron came up with it before the series went into production and we use it as a reference, a starting point. It isn't carved in stone. Sky One may have had access to pieces of it, but what happens on screen supercedes anything that doesn't. - Ngarenn 13:09, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


For my part, I'm just curious as to what role the writing staff had in the creation of those bios in the first place. --Peter Farago 20:54, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
In the beginning was the bible. Then came the staff. - Ngarenn 13:09, 7 July 2006 (CDT)