Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Wed May 25, 2011 12:41 am

Fair enough.

So would we dare design our own BSG Battlestars for oBSG and nBSG?
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Wed May 25, 2011 3:58 am

Deepcrush wrote:Fair enough.

So would we dare design our own BSG Battlestars for oBSG and nBSG?



I'm down... like I said, though, we'll just have to pin down an approximation of space requirements for BSG-verse FTL engines and other tech. And supplies - does a Viper's full fuel load mean 800 gallons of liquid "X," or a marble-sized pellet?
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Wed May 25, 2011 3:14 pm

Guess that depends on if we're talking oBSG or nBSG.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Wed May 25, 2011 3:18 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Guess that depends on if we're talking oBSG or nBSG.


Well, it was your idea... which, then? (so long as it's not BSG '80 - in that case, I'm out.)
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Wed May 25, 2011 3:22 pm

BSG80 does not exist... there is only oBSG and nBSG.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Graham Kennedy » Wed May 25, 2011 4:17 pm

So very tempted to edit everyone's posts to remove even the mention of The-Series-Which-Shalt-Not-Be-Named-And-Does-Not-Exist...
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8389
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Wed May 25, 2011 4:28 pm

What's worse... people asked for it.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Sonic Glitch » Wed May 25, 2011 5:14 pm

Mikey wrote:What's worse... people asked for it.

Well they got what they deserved then eh?
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 25, 2011 5:35 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Yes, a thousand Cylon fighters ambushed the Battlestars. But we've pointed out already the weak AA ability of the Battlestars.


Exactly - so why would it be any different with a single Basestar against a single Battlestar, when the odds would be much more heavily in the Cylons favour?

Can't say I've ever seen them shown to be so large. Though I also haven't ever look to measure them.


The internal arrangement of the Eastern Alliance destroyer in "Greetings from Earth" means that it's wingspan can't be much less than 50 metres. When it leaves the Galactica's landing bay in Baltar's Escape, its wingspan can be seen to be about half the width of the bay. From there it's a simple matter to calculate that the Galactica is about a kilometre wide and two and a half kilometres long.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Wed May 25, 2011 5:38 pm

Sonic Glitch wrote:
Mikey wrote:What's worse... people asked for it.

Well they got what they deserved then eh?


Half-and-half. People started a letter campaign (rarely heard-of at the time) to ask ABC for more BSG; what they got was a gutted, cut-rate version which was designed to be produced cheaply enough to make ABC not have reservations about doing it.

At least Boxey was gone.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 25, 2011 5:43 pm

Mark wrote:
Adama asks if any of the other ships could launch their Vipers, to which he receives a report that they didn't. Yet Rigel reports that out of the 67 Vipers returning to Galactica, 25 fighters belonged to Galactica. Obviously, the other battlestars launched some of their Vipers, but in few numbers and not in time. Additionally, there might have been patrols from other battlestars that were deployed at the time, but returned to the main fight.


So, according to this dialoge, Galactica was WAY undermanned.


Don't forget that fighters were still trickling back to the Colonies from the fleet when that report was made. It was an update, not a final tally.

The addition of two damaged squadrons from Pegasus COULD have brought that number up to about 150. I concede my arguement....but we still don't know what the STANDARD capacity of fighters are.


My point is that Battlestars appear to have a standard flight group of two squadrons, and a squadron has a standard strength of 75 ships. Tigh couldn't have known what the exact strength of the Basestar's fighter group was at that exact time, so his statement must have been based on a standard group at full strength.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Mikey » Wed May 25, 2011 5:46 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Hmm... 610m... I'm not seeing that fitting 20 Nimitz in each pod...



It's doubtful that 610m is the correct length. That number appeared in an article or two about the production, but was constantly contradicted by evidence of the ship being at least twice that length.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 25, 2011 5:54 pm

Mark wrote:Wait....I just remembered this site, which seems to have pretty good info

http://www.tecr.com/galactica/index.html


I've seen that site before, and I'm not impressed. He's shows very little working, mixes canon with his own stuff, decides solium is hydrogen based on nothing remotely resembling evidence, assumes that the Basestars' weapons are the equal of the Ravishol pulsar, and has this little gem on sidearms:

a Colonial Blaster would have a power output of approximately 315 kilowatts...Cylon Blaster Rifles were able to vaporize a similar mass as the Colonial hand gun, and probably had an output of roughly 1.5 megawatts.


Same effects...almost five times the firepower. Really? :roll:
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Deepcrush » Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:Exactly - so why would it be any different with a single Basestar against a single Battlestar, when the odds would be much more heavily in the Cylons favour?


Because Vipers and their pilots have been shown to be far superior to Cylons. Even when outnumbered two to one.

The internal arrangement of the Eastern Alliance destroyer in "Greetings from Earth" means that it's wingspan can't be much less than 50 metres. When it leaves the Galactica's landing bay in Baltar's Escape, its wingspan can be seen to be about half the width of the bay. From there it's a simple matter to calculate that the Galactica is about a kilometre wide and two and a half kilometres long.


Again, I can't say I've measured either the destroyer or landing bay.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Colonial Battlestar

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 25, 2011 6:09 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Because Vipers and their pilots have been shown to be far superior to Cylons. Even when outnumbered two to one.


And yet when they outnumber the Cylons three to two they're shit? There would have been 400-odd Vipers deployed at Cimtar, even assuming the numbers Athena reported were proportional to those deployed. In practice they were probably weighted in favour of Galactica's own fighters, as they launched first and would therefore need to return to refuel first, and they would have been more predisposed to break of the action to return home, while the others would have naturally fallen back to defend their own home Battlestars rather than taking off across the stars to Galactica.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

PreviousNext

Return to Battlestar Galactica

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest